to me, every atom in existence is proof of a God.
You didn't use those atoms to arrive at a god belief, which is what you could do with them with the application of valid reasoning to arrive at that conclusion if the atoms were evidence of a god. You chose to believe in a God by faith, and now see everything as confirmation of that choice. Had you chosen to believe that there was no God by faith, then those atoms could be used the same way to "prove" to you that there is no God.
To you it’s fallacy to me it’s truth.
The opposite of fallacy is not truth, but rather, valid reasoning. The opposite of truth is false. Note that in both cases, nothing can be both. Nothing can be both valid reasoning and fallacy at once, and nothing can be both true and false in the same sense at the same time. That means that at least one of you is wrong. Either one's reasoning is valid, and another is wrong calling it fallacy, or one's reasoning is fallacious, and considering it "true" (valid) is wrong. Are you aware of that? If so, do you have any interest in knowing whether it is him or you that is wrong?
Would you agree that addition is pure reason? Going from addends to sum is a rigorous logical process. Do it properly (valid reasoning), and you arrive at a correct sum. Use an invalid step anywhere, such as adding 8+3 and getting 12, and now you will generate an erroneous conclusion. Your comment above is like the two of you discussing an addition problem where you have arrived at different answers, and you saying, to you it's an error, to me it's correct.
what Baha’i books have you read? I think to judge another’s belief one should be very well versed in it.
I don't think that too many of us skeptics are interested in religious literature. It doesn't really matter what is written. The material you have posted recently looks like poetry to me, which is art, not guidance. It all does. It's in lofty language with no specific meaning.
When we judge believers, it is for the soundness of their reasoning. When we judge their religion, it is based in its rendering in humanity, not its claims for itself, and not words on paper. So, there is no reason to read such books. It's enough to read these posts on RF. It is here that I get my best understanding of what secular humanism and each of the religious denominations are based on how they manifest in the writings of such people. The Baha'i seem to be a pretty homogeneous group, writing in a similar polite and upbeat demeanor about similar topics, especially human unity, which is nice, but more helpful to them to say than to me hear.
There is nothing there for me. I already have a worldview that works well, secular humanism, the inevitable result of rejecting faith as a path to truth. As a result, the humanist develops critical thinking skills to his utmost, where the theist either never learns how to think critically, or else is willing to put it aside at times. You can see the difference in the rendering of those two ways of understanding reality right here in this thread.
If one does not pray, meditate and reflect on the Words of God regularly how can he expect his spiritual senses to be healthy. From lack of use our spiritual senses deteriorate to the point we think we do not possess them. But to those who regularly study the Word of God , reflect on it and act virtuously their spiritual senses are fully functional.
I don't think that most of the religious or the spiritual-but-not-religious have a clear concept of what they are pursuing here, or how to find it. Your method was sterile for me. I am a former Christian, and participated in those activities for years. It generated nothing of lasting value. These isms that distract your attention from what is all around you and what is really important are anti-spiritual in my estimation.
Do you have a clear concept of where you are trying to be? What does a good day look and feel like? I never pray or read holy books. People expecting to reach some higher plane or transcendent knowledge are searching in vain. Look at the people in these threads that post like that. What have they accomplished? What have they learned of value? If you want to see higher understanding in these threads, you'll need to look to other kinds of posters.
There is no higher plane than ordinary life lived mindfully and in harmony with one's self and surroundings. You won't learn about love, for example, in any holy book. You have to approach the matter mindfully, attentively, even scientifically. The senses you call spiritual senses are simply the external senses, the moral sense, and the reasoning sense. The "secrets" they reveal can be stated simply in plain language easy to understand. They are ordinary words, not arcane knowledge.
The goal is equanimity, a peaceful life relatively shame-, guilt-, and conflict-free, one surrounded by beauty, and sense of purpose in the world. Wisdom comes from understanding what to pursue to achieve a satisfying life. Intelligence is knowing how to make it happen. Use your own faculties, reason and conscience, to discover what those are, not holy books. I know this from experience. I've tried both. I've learned what a good day looks and feels like, and how to achieve it.
If you'd like some "scripture" to "study," watch Groundhog Day. You probably already know that it is about a man who awakens every morning into the same day, with all of the same events happening each day, beginning with the alarm going off to a Sonny and Cher song. He's a snarky man with no social graces, no friends, and no love or beauty in his life, who is allowed to see how his choices affect outcomes and whether they lead to happiness or not. He gets to tweak his approach to life each day to further perfect his worldview and it's ability to help him find happiness. In the end, he learns how what matters - what makes him happy (wisdom), and how to get it (intelligence).
Another great American movie that teaches a similar lesson is Regarding Henry, where a high-powered, narcissistic attorney, who yells at his daughter for spilling her juice from behind his newspaper at breakfast, is later shot in the head, becomes somewhat retarded (think Forrest Gump), and everything changed for him, including his personality. He learns wisdom, once again, not from a holy book. In his new state, he's once again at the table with his daughter, and if I recall correctly, she nearly spills her juice again, winces in fear at her father's remembered response, and he just smiles and knocks the juice over himself. Look what's become important to him and what has ceased to be.
The universe has neither beginning nor end. It always existed. By beginning and end I’m referring to bodies such as stars and planets which are born and die not the entire existence which always existed. The universe may have had a beginning but other universes always existed. The world of creation has had no beginning and will have no end (Abdul-Baha)
Is this Baha'i doctrine? If the universe has always existed, it needs no God to create it.
Cause and effect applies to that which is created but not God Who is eternal.
Are you getting into the cosmological argument here? It's incompatible with your previous comment that the universe has always existed. It is based in the idea that universe had a beginning, one of its premises.