• 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!

I could never blame an atheist for being an atheist

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Do you mean Baha’u’llah’s argument of what all of the Bible means?
I meant that you are no different to the Christians you highlighted as arguing over the correct interpretation of the Bible in a way that is confusing to atheists (and anyone else) looking on from the outside. I’d respectfully suggest that you’re part of the same problem and it’s somewhat hypocritical to complain about the others without at least acknowledging that.

You are correct, all atheists are different just as all believers are different. When I said “the atheists are right” I was referring to a subset of atheists I have posted to.
You never really identified any subset and gave no reason why the issues you mentioned would be exclusive to atheists. In general terms, I think it is extremely rare for there to be a valid reason to even use the word “atheist” to define a group of people, especially given how generic, open and disputed it’s meaning is. Most division and conflict is driven by people being lumped in to such generic categories, which generally boil down to “us” and “them”, so I think it’s best to avoid them unless they’re specifically necessary or beneficial.

On your point specifically, I think the focus of atheists actually distracts from a key element of the problem. I’d suggest that believers are just as confused over the “correct” interpretation of scripture and the wider big questions of existence (because the idea that all the answers just need us to work out the correct interpretation of the Christian Bible is ridiculously presumptive and highly arrogant ;) ). People argue so strongly with each other not because they’re confident other people are wrong but because deep down, they’re not at all confident they’re right. People who are truly comfortable in their own world-view don’t need to argue with anyone else about it.

Unlike you, I think we can know what is true, but not everyone is going to know. Of course I believe my religion is a true religion but the other religions also have spiritual truth. They just do not have the updated truth for this new age, the new message of the unity of mankind or the new social teachings and laws.
I’m not saying we’re incapable of having the knowledge, only that I see no natural path for us to gain it. Even if someone happened to stumble of a belief structure that did have the precise right answers, how would they know, for certain, that they were right?

Your statements about your religion sound exactly like all the ones that came before and all the ones that came after. I mean, it could be word-for-word what early Christians told the Jews. :cool:
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
God is not social and God doesn't pursue social interaction.
When I say "social interaction," I'm including any attempt to communicate, directly or indirectly.

I believe that since God is interested in us God did communicate through Messengers and that is very intelligible.
Yes, I know this is what you believe. What I'm saying is that this is completely counter to what we would expect from, effectively, a multi-billion-year-old solitary alien.

As I said, I believe God created us out of love, but that does not mean God loves like a human would love.
God's love is beyond any human love.
Still an anthropomorphism, IMO.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
The brain processes data in two different yet opposite and connected ways. The left brain is more differential and helps us differentiate reality into its distinct parts. Cultural language is an important part of this processing, since language helps us to express differential nuance and meaning.

The right brain is more integral in terms of data processing. It integrates data into general trends. The right brain uses a different language called symbolism which is a 3-D or integral language.

In calculus, differentiation finds the slope of a curve at a given point; P, while integration finds the area under the curve from point A to point B. Both operations uses the same curve; data set, but each massage the same data in very distinct ways.

As an example, the Statue of Liberty, as a differential concept, is a large statue in New York Harbor. It is a very distinct thing. As a symbol and integral concept, the Stature of Liberty represents liberty. Liberty is a concept that is not easy to put into one set of words, to give it full meaning. It takes a level of integral intuition.

The debate between religion and science is really a debate between specialties with respect to the two sides of the human brain. Science generates data faster than it can process the data into theory. Science and atheism is more differential and left brained. Religion tends to work in symbolism and faith/intuition. It can appear to be esoteric and difficult to prove; hard to differentiate to a bottom line. This is because it is more right brained and tries to integrate reality and experience into a symbolic expression; God.

In the ideal world, you should be able to do both sides of the brain and would thereby realize each side expresses half of the whole truth. The female brain tends to process data more left to right and right to left; verbal. The male brain processes data more front to back and back to front; visual. Fs such, female's tend to use both sides of the brain, more often than men. This may be why females usually do not engage in the this debate as often as men.

Men by being more front to back and back to front, use the visual cortex and frontal cortex, more often. These are connected to real time vision; visual evidence,, and imagination, respectively. It appears that the lack of left-right development, in men, in light of greater front and back development seems to have a connection to the area of debate.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The brain processes data in two different yet opposite and connected ways. The left brain is more differential and helps us differentiate reality into its distinct parts. Cultural language is an important part of this processing, since language helps us to express differential nuance and meaning.

The right brain is more integral in terms of data processing. It integrates data into general trends. The right brain uses a different language called symbolism which is a 3-D or integral language.

In calculus, differentiation finds the slope of a curve at a given point; P, while integration finds the area under the curve from point A to point B. Both operations uses the same curve; data set, but each massage the same data in very distinct ways.

As an example, the Statue of Liberty, as a differential concept, is a large statue in New York Harbor. It is a very distinct thing. As a symbol and integral concept, the Stature of Liberty represents liberty. Liberty is a concept that is not easy to put into one set of words, to give it full meaning. It takes a level of integral intuition.

The debate between religion and science is really a debate between specialties with respect to the two sides of the human brain. Science generates data faster than it can process the data into theory. Science and atheism is more differential and left brained. Religion tends to work in symbolism and faith/intuition. It can appear to be esoteric and difficult to prove; hard to differentiate to a bottom line. This is because it is more right brained and tries to integrate reality and experience into a symbolic expression; God.

In the ideal world, you should be able to do both sides of the brain and would thereby realize each side expresses half of the whole truth. The female brain tends to process data more left to right and right to left; verbal. The male brain processes data more front to back and back to front; visual. Fs such, female's tend to use both sides of the brain, more often than men. This may be why females usually do not engage in the this debate as often as men.

Men by being more front to back and back to front, use the visual cortex and frontal cortex, more often. These are connected to real time vision; visual evidence,, and imagination, respectively. It appears that the lack of left-right development, in men, in light of greater front and back development seems to have a connection to the area of debate.
FYI, this sort of left brain/right brain stuff has largely been discredited:

More Left Brain / Right Brain Nonsense | NeuroLogica Blog

As for science versus religion: it's very rare that I encounter a theist who is arguing for a non-literal existence of their god(s). Whatever meaning or purpose they've wrapped around those gods, both the religious people and more scientifically-minded people are generally both talking about the same thing: testing or demonstrating literal existence of a real being.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
Sure we believe the Bible. We just have a better understanding of it than you do. God wants every one of His children to be reconciled to Him, not just some of them. Jesus Christ stands at the door each person's door, and says, "if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Some don't heed the knock or hear the voice or open the door, but it's NOT because God doesn't want them. Good grief! What kind of a God would fail to offer salvation to all of us?
Everyone is NOT one of God's children. He gives people the power to BECOME his children. Yes, people interpret the Bible in different ways. And, like you, everyone thinks their idea is better than others. Maybe. Maybe not.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Yes, I know this is what you believe. What I'm saying is that this is completely counter to what we would expect from, effectively, a multi-billion-year-old solitary alien.
Do you understand that it is illogical to put expectations on an Omnipotent/Omniscient God and why that is illogical?
What would you expect?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Do you understand that it is illogical to put expectations on an Omnipotent/Omniscient God and why that is illogical?
I don't see why it would be illogical, no.

All beings are products of their environment. If the environment that God arose in is solitary, timeless void with no pressures toward sociability, I think it would be illogical to expect that God would be social.

What would you expect?
That God would be no more interested with human interaction than an octopus or a fungus is.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
I also had a lot of depression in my life and still have a predisposition to it. This might sound silly but what I blamed God for was all my beloved cats that died, there were so many. It did not help that my older brother had told me God was punishing me and trying to make me realize the cats were not that important and I needed to be a better Baha'i. Well, needless to say, when I finally decided to turn to God through the Baha'i Faith I got on a Baha'i forum and talked to Baha'is who were aghast at what my brother had told me, saying that was a misinterpretation of the Baha'i Writings. It took a lot of undoing to realize that God was not deliberately punishing me, but rather I had a lot of Persian cats and they had serious genetic problems and when I bred them that was passed down unbeknownst to me.

Now we only have 10 cats and I think all of them who had genetic heart and kidney defects have passed on. But even when I think about it now, I am livid at God for all that suffering I have endured. I cannot seem to help connecting God with the suffering; even now when I lose a cat I rage at God and it takes a while before I am able to recover. But the recovery time is less now, and a part of me knows I am wrong so I do recover, unlike in the past when I was suicidal and ended up in urgent care. No counselors or drugs ever helped me but when I finally broke down and turned to God, things started to improve. I now just accept the fact that cats will get sick and die eventually but I do not have to like it. :mad: Why did God have to create a world that is a storehouse of suffering, unevenly distributed suffering? Well, hopefully I will understand it better after I die and enter the World of Lights. :)

Well, it is good to meet a Christian who does not buy that Christian doctrine. :) I was beginning to feel hopeless, like I would never meet one. :(

I am sure glad you and God found each other, I am still working on that. :D

Thanks, it's nice to hear the details of another persons spiritual journey. Thank you for sharing!
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I think that some atheists are more spiritual than some religious people.
It is not necessary to *believe* that God exists to live a spiritual life and all people who believe that God exists are not spiritual, Imo.
You said it. God and religion are superfluous (for some people).
Anyone can buy it, all they have to do is be a confident believer in the One True God. :)
What would be the cost like. We Indians are very cost conscious. And then why should I buy it when I may not require it. :)
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Are you saying Bhaullah's are almost good Hindus? *wink*
I would consider one a good Hindu who does not care about what other people believe and is happy with his own belief. He should also try to fulfill his duties and engage in righteous action ('dharma'). That is indicated by a following saying:

"Ashtādasha puraneshu Vyāsasya vachanam dwaya; paropakāram punyāya, pāpāya parapīdanam."
(Of the eighteen puranas written by Sage Vedavyasa, the essence is these two; helping others is merit, to pain others is sin.)
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Everyone is NOT one of God's children. He gives people the power to BECOME his children. Yes, people interpret the Bible in different ways. And, like you, everyone thinks their idea is better than others. Maybe. Maybe not.
So who does the Bible say is the father of our spirits?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
The idea that God chooses people to be saved or not addresses a logical problem with universal salvation... or at least a problem with it in some theological constructs: if God really is trying to save everyone by convincing them to become Christian (or Christian of a particular denominatio), the sheer number of non-Christians in the world suggests that God is just bad at convincing people... like way worse than would be expected of a very powerful, very wise being, and irreconcilably worse than would be expected from a perfect being.
Well, if the final curtain dropped at death, I might agree with you. But since I don't believe it does, I think God is quite competent in allowing things to progress at a different rate of speed than one might expect.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
What Baha'u'llah offers is a lot better than what the Qur'an offers, but then I do not care about sex or alcohol. ;)

Very interesting and well-done video. I learned a lot about your beliefs from it. I especially liked the description of what a soul actually is, and found that it corresponded closely with my own (LDS) belief. Of course, there were also some pretty significant differences between our beliefs, but I really enjoyed the way in which your beliefs were presented.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Well, if the final curtain dropped at death, I might agree with you. But since I don't believe it does, I think God is quite competent in allowing things to progress at a different rate of speed than one might expect.
Right. That's the Mormon response to the problem. Several other denominations believe that the curtain does drop with death for their own theological reasons, which limits their options. They have to infer God's will from what we see on Earth, based on the assumption that when we die, the case is closed on everything that God will use to decide salvation.

Given that assumption, beliefs like Calvin's "TULIP" resolve many logical problems. They make God out to be a monster, but at least a consistent monster.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
So who does the Bible say is the father of our spirits?
Hi Katzpur. I would truly like to hear your interpretation of John 1:12. It says that to as many as received him, to them gave he power to BECOME sons of God. This implies that not everyone receives this power. Only those who receive him. And second, it is the power to BECOME sons of God. This means that even after one receives this power one is not automatically a son of God but must BECOME one. So it is pretty obvious that not everyone is God's son and not everyone even receives the power to become God's son. What is your view on this?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Hi Katzpur. I would truly like to hear your interpretation of John 1:12. It says that to as many as received him, to them gave he power to BECOME sons of God. This implies that not everyone receives this power. Only those who receive him. And second, it is the power to BECOME sons of God. This means that even after one receives this power one is not automatically a son of God but must BECOME one. So it is pretty obvious that not everyone is God's son and not everyone even receives the power to become God's son. What is your view on this?
How about I answer your question after you've answered mine?
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
How about I answer your question after you've answered mine?
You know what? That sounds fair. Are you familiar with the story of Pinocchio? An old man made a puppet out of wood. He really wanted the puppet to be his son. But a puppet made of wood can never be the son of a human man. The man MADE the puppet but he did not father it. So God made a human body out of dust. And God gave life to that body. But the human body was NOT God.\' son. God MADE the human but He did not father it. Just like the wooden puppet. The difference is the God gives humans the chance to BECOME His sons. So how do you interpret John 1:12? It says God gives people the power to BECOME His sons. It does NOT say every living person is automatically God's son. If that were true, why would he need to give them the power to become his sons? Your ideas? Also, if I make a machine that I can put in a doll to make the doll walk and talk, that does NOT make me the father of the doll. If God put a spirit in humans, that also does NOT make God the person's father. Make sense?
 
Top