1. 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!

Featured Is atheism a religion?

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by dmap, Nov 3, 2018.

  1. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    5,457
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    That is true, but if one is too skeptical they will not be led down ANY paths.

    One needs actual evidence to prove that their skepticism warrants rejection of the truth of a religion.
    There is no such thing as rational because what is rational TO YOU is not necessarily rational to someone else. Unless you can prove that something is irrational you cannot SAY it is irrational.

    Case in point: I consider the Christian belief that bodies will rise from graves when Jesus returns to be an irrational belief because science has demonstrated that bodies die and decompose, so they cannot come back to life and rise from a grave. Yet millions of people believe this is going to happen.
    I already explained that I never read all of God Passes By, and I did not read that chapter. That is not required reading for a Baha’i, although it is recommended.
    I did not blindly accept that answer. I was waiting for more answers to come in and they did. Moreover, if I post the question on the other Baha’i forum where there are more members from all over the world, I will probably get even more answers.
    How many times do I have to repeat myself? That is not a basic question that indicates anything about the Baha’i Faith. It is just something you picked out from among all the evidence so you could nitpick.
    Did you ever go to college and do research? I did. I have two post graduate degrees so I did a lot of research and i wrote a lot of research papers. So I know what "primary resource material" is.

    I got some more answers from Planet Baha'i today that explain a logical way that he could have known word for word what the Grand Vizir and Baha’u’llah said. Bold was added by me for emphasis.

    The question is, "How could Shoghi Effendi have known these things?" One might as well ask how the authors of the documents that became the Gospels knew what happened in the secretive late-night examination of Jesus by the Sanhedrin, or how the Apostles, who were sleeping, knew what happened as Jesus prayed alone in Gethsemane.

    Actually, in Shoghi Effendi's case, the answer is rather simple: like any other author seeking to chronicle historical events, he did his research and relied as much as possible on primary source material.

    You've heard of The Dawnbreakers, also known as Nabil's Narrative. Nabil-i-A'zam, one of the nineteen apostles of Baha'u'llah, did extensive research and conducted interviews in the course of writing this history of the Babi and early Baha'i Faiths, a work which Shoghi Effendi himself translated into English and published in 1932. If I'm not mistaken, a lot of the material in God Passes By is based on The Dawnbreakers.

    Moreover, those who knew Baha'u'llah would likely have heard from His own lips what happened during at least a few encounters with officials. Some of his followers may even have been present in some cases. These stories would likely have circulated among the Baha'i community, just as various stories of Jesus would have circulated among the early Christian community before being written down. One could always question the accuracy of these accounts, but one can't complain that Shoghi Effendi was making stuff up from whole cloth any more than one can complain the authors of the Gospels were doing so.

    The basis of accounts of Baha'ullah's life and of Jesus' life are, in other words, exactly the same.


    Delphi Forums Login

    Having read your posting and reviewed Dale's answer. I seem to understand what is being asked of you.

    I think Dale's answer is pretty good. Nabil (of the Dawnbreaker's) provides a pretty precise account of how he went about writing his history. He interviewed people who witnessed events and corroborated that testimony with at least three other accounts. As for reports of conversations in God Passes By, those could have been from encounters that were recounted later on or reports from Messengers or envoys. There is no reason to suspect any kind of duplicity in these stories. The Authorities in Persia did harbor negative feelings and animus towards the Babi and Baha'i religions. There was no need to "make things up" to make them look bad.

    That said, these works (Dawnbreakers and God Passes By) are history and not scripture. They aren't meant to be taken as the authoritative documentary evidence of what happened. They are accounts of what happened and are subject to limitations inherent in the field of history.

    Funny story about Dawnbreakers... I bought an old copy from our community library. It has notes in the margin's from a long ago reader. At the beginning of the book, the notes were pretty harsh and skeptical. As one progresses in the book, the notes become progressively softer and show more "wonderment"... Methinks the reader slowly became more enamoured with Baha'u'llah as he read through the book and probably converted along the way.


    Delphi Forums Login
     
  2. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    3,911
    Ratings:
    +2,069
    Religion:
    atheist
    Wrong. Your knowledge of logic is lacking.

    In addition to having problems comprehending logic, your knowledge of the English language is also very lacking.

    Hasty: done or acting with excessive speed or urgency; hurried.​

    Concluding that people of all religions believe that their religion is the only true religion was not done hastily. It is obvious from studies and observations that were done for thousands of years.

    Read the OT. See what the Hebrews felt about their beliefs and the beliefs of others.
    Read the NT. See what the Christians felt about their beliefs and the beliefs of others.
    Read the writings of Luther. See what the Protestants felt about their beliefs and the beliefs of others.
    Read the writings of JW. See what the JWs feel about their beliefs and the beliefs of others.

    So, nothing hasty at all. No inductive generalization. All based on overwhelming evidence. Taking into consideration all the variables.


    According to what we have observed for thousands of years (not hastily) is that God has apparently revealed himself and his true religion in thousands of different ways to millions of true believers. If we are to believe any of it, we must conclude that god is a big jokester and is not to be taken seriously.
     
  3. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    3,911
    Ratings:
    +2,069
    Religion:
    atheist

    Now you are really grasping at straws, even to the point where you are using the word "prove" and writing in boldface.
    You do know, or at least you should know, people making extraordinary claims are the ones who need to provide evidence to support those claims. Your religion cites and quotes word for word from private conversations. You and your fellow Bahai have been unable to provide any reasonable explanation for how this is possible.

    You posted it as part of the evidence that led you to accept Bahai as your religion. One must conclude that if the "history that is chronicled" cannot be verified, it is not history, it is fables.


    I understand why you have to try to shift the burden of proof or evidence to me. But, as I said above, people making extraordinary claims are the ones who need to provide evidence to support those claims.

    You (Bahai) are making extraordinary claims. I don't have to prove anything. I'm not even asking you to prove anything. I just asked for a reasonable explanation. You have been unable to provide one. You have already posted several versions from different sources. None of which explain anything.

    More importantly, why have you not raised these questions yourself? Don't you care to know whether there is truth to what you have been told?
     
  4. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    3,911
    Ratings:
    +2,069
    Religion:
    atheist
    Nonsense.

    If you need to shift the burden of proof from those making the claims to those questioning the claims, then you have lost.

    If you need to shift the burden of proof from those making the claims to those questioning the claims, then you have lost.

    Just because many people believe something does not make the belief rational. Many people believe they have been subjected to examinations by UFO Aliens. It is up to them to prove it. They can't. It's not rational.



    I only know of it because you posted it or links to it.

    If you didn't accept Duane's answer, why did you post it to me? I have been working under the impression that when you post something, it's something you believe. Now I find that's not true.


    Yeah. And you did get more answers. All different. That says as much about your fellow Bahai's knowledge of their religion as it says about your knowledge.


    How many times do I have to repeat myself? If writings essential to your religion are obviously fakes then why should you or I or anyone expect other parts to be correct?



    Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! It was something I randomly picked out from stuff from a link you provided. Questioning how the writings could be authentic is not nit picking. It's something everyone should do?


    In those research papers, did you write things that looked like your own first-person observations when in fact they were not? Or would you, like me, have considered that to be unethical?


    Yes, indeed. I haven't compared your quoted writings to the gospels because I didn't want to go off on a different tangent. But certainly, they all suffer from the same problem. They are written as though the writers were actual eyewitnesses, when in fact they could not have been. However, those Christians that defend the seemingly first-person account hedge by saying that God inspired the writers. You don't even have that cop-out.



    Wait a minute. You've been saying all along that the writings were by Shigi Effendi. Are you now saying that they are not his writings at all, but merely translations? So now we, you - me, don't even know who wrote what!

    You've previously made analogies to courtrooms. Now we find that Shogi Effendi's writings are translations of hearsay. That's a far cry from how you originally described the writings.





    "May have been present". "May have heard from". Would you like to put this back into your courtroom scenario? If you did you'd see how really ridiculous it is to put any credence into any of the writings.




    Is this part from you or from the Bahai forums you went to? Are you and the Bahai experts unaware of the fact that no one knows who wrote the gospels? Are you aware that, although written in the first person, they could not have been written by eyewitnesses?

    Yes, I agree, they are. In both cases they are obvious fabrications.


    In other words stories of stories of stories.
    RE: He interviewed people who witnessed events and corroborated that testimony with at least three other accounts.

    As a skeptic, I would have to ask: How is that known to be factual?
    How do we know he corroborated the testimony with three other accounts?


    RE: As for reports of conversations in God Passes By, those could have been from encounters that were recounted later

    Could have been... later recounted. Stories of stories of stories.

    RE: reports from Messengers or envoys.

    Messengers with a capital "M"? How many Messengers are you talking about? First it was just Balula. Then it was Bab. Now more?

    RE: There is no reason to suspect any kind of duplicity in these stories.

    There is every reason to believe it's all just made up stuff just like all other religions.
     
  5. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    5,457
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Explain why. Why would it matter what other religions believe about themselves if you have the one true religion? That is like saying that that just because there are a bunch of junk cars in the junkyard that means that your new car is also junky. That is illogical.

    If you are trying to say that the Baha’i Faith cannot be the one true religion just because other religions say they are the one true religion (and they are not) that is committing the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization.

    An example that I like from Wikipedia:

    “For example, if a person travels through a town for the first time and sees 10 people, all of them children, they may erroneously conclude that there are no adult residents in the town.” the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization.
    Of course people of all religions believe that their religion is the only true religion. Otherwise they would not believe in their religion. But that was not my point. My point was that just because people of all religions believe that their religion is the only true religion, that does not mean that there is no true religion. Logically speaking, all those people could be wrong and one religion could be right.

    The point is that there could be one true religion. It is a hasty generalization to conclude that there cannot be one true religion just because many religions claim to be the one true religion and are not. Concluding that there cannot be one true religion is essentially making a rushed conclusion unless you have looked at all the evidence for all the religions.
    There is a good reason to suspect that many religions were the “true religions” but only in their own age, and that my religion is the religion for this new age. The evidence is overwhelming, enough to sink a ship. Not only have that, but the evidence for my religion ties in with all the previous religions, lending them support. The only logical conclusion is that God sends Messengers in every age to reveal religions, and that God has sent a new Messenger to reveal a new religion for this age.

    Logic 101: What do you do when you have a car or computer that is totaled and it cannot be repaired? You get a new car or computer. It is the same with the older religions. They have been corrupted so much that they are beyond repair. Not only that, but they do not have the teachings and laws that we need in this new age. The only reason people hang onto the older religions is because that is what they have come to believe them and they feel secure with them. This is psych 101. Moreover many people have been convinced that the God they believe in is the only God and that their religion alone represents that God. Other people just want a religion that is tailor made to their lifestyle and needs and they do not really care about what is actually the Truth from God. Very few people meet the criteria necessary to be Baha’is.

    Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

    As this relates to evidence, the real evidence for God is the evidence that most people do not find at the narrow gate... It is the Baha’i Faith.

    As this relates to religion, the religion at the narrow gate is the religion God wants us to find and follow, and it is the gate that leads to eternal life. But it is not that easy for most people to find this gate because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the *new religion* and the *new messenger.* If they are atheists they do not like the *idea* of messengers of God or they think they are all phonies.

    It is difficult to get through the narrow gate because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel. That is human nature.
    No, sorry but that is illogical on its very face. The reasons why people believe that their religion is the right one are not the same for all people. That would be like me saying the reason all atheists do not believe in God is because of ego. I would never say that because I realize that all people are different.
    There is absolutely no problem with that. Of course God has apparently revealed himself and his true religion in different ways to millions of true believers. There are really not that many true religions... The thousands of ways exist because so many sects split off from the originally revealed religion.

    Why would God reveal Himself in the same way throughout history? Whereas God remains the same, humans and the world they live in change markedly over time. That is why religions differ over time. Baha’u’llah explained that all the Messengers of God (Manifestations of His Cause) are valid and a reflection of God’s Will and Purpose, and we are not to make any distinction between them.

    “Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity, if ye be of them that apprehend and believe this truth. Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and every one of these Manifestations of God, nay whatever pertaineth unto them, and whatsoever they may manifest in the future, are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs, and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers.”
    Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 59-60

    Nevertheless, only one religion is pertinent in any age of history since the needs of humanity change in every age.

    “The Prophets of God should be regarded as physicians whose task is to foster the well-being of the world and its peoples, that, through the spirit of oneness, they may heal the sickness of a divided humanity. To none is given the right to question their words or disparage their conduct, for they are the only ones who can claim to have understood the patient and to have correctly diagnosed its ailments. No man, however acute his perception, can ever hope to reach the heights which the wisdom and understanding of the Divine Physician have attained. Little wonder, then, if the treatment prescribed by the physician in this day should not be found to be identical with that which he prescribed before. How could it be otherwise when the ills affecting the sufferer necessitate at every stage of his sickness a special remedy?”
    Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 80
     
  6. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    5,457
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Why do you deflect? You are the one making the accusation that something is patently false so you are the one who has to prove your case.

    The thing is that I have not claimed that God Passes By is inerrant. In fact, I claimed the exact opposite. I said it is a history of the Baha’i Faith, not intended to be inerrant. Shoghi Effendi defines his intentions in the Foreword to the book: God Passes By -- Foreword

    You have missed the entire purpose of the book by focusing on one page.

    I provided the reasonable explanation on the next post. If you do not consider it reasonable I don’t care.
    How many times have I told you that I never even read any of God Passes By before I became a Baha’i and I still have not read much of it. It is not required reading.

    Who said that the history cannot be verified? It certainly can be verified if someone wants to do that much work.

    The history of the Baha’i Faith does not consist of one page in a book that you picked out. You are looking at *what you consider* to be a small flaw on the side of a barn, and meanwhile you have missed the entire barn. I am the only Baha’i who would still be discussing this with you, I guarantee that.
    But you see, I did not make any claims about God Passes By being inerrant. You are making the claims that it is fraudulent so you have the burden of proof.
    I made no extraordinary claims about God Passes By. It is not scripture. It is a general history and Shoghi Effendi did the best he could to chronicle that history. He said that in the future, historians would do a better job. It is way too early in this revelation to have scholarly works as we have for Christianity.
    I raised them on Planet Baha’i and I got sufficient answers that make complete logical sense to me... YMMV.
     
  7. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    5,457
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    No, not nonsense. There is no way you can be led down any path if you continually look at every little detail and suspect it is a flaw.
    I made no claims about God Passes By. You are the one making the claims so you have the burden of proof.
    I made no claims about God Passes By. You are the one making the claims so you have the burden of proof.
    I never said that Christianity is rational.
    No, I was just posting the answers I had thus far. I intended to wait for more answers.
    What does my knowledge or their knowledge of the Baha’i Faith have anything to do with what we have been talking about? How does that reflect upon whether the Baha’i Faith is true or false? Some Baha’is know less than me, some know more. That is like saying that because some people have a BA in physics, some have and MA and some have a PhD, Physics is not true science.

    People are all different and so they come from different perspectives and they all have different knowledge bases. That is why it is good to get more than one perspective. None of these perspectives contradict each other. Now you are trying to turn that around and make what is a positive into a negative.
    You cannot win this one. I never said that God Passes By was *writings essential to my religion.” Moreover, you have not proven anything to be a fake.

    It would not matter one iota if those words in that private conversation were not exactly what was said, not anymore than it matters that what is in the New Testament is exactly what Jesus said. The main point gets across regardless.
    They are authentic because we KNOW that Shoghi Effendi wrote them. Even if what he quoted in the private conversation was not word for word, that does not change the authenticity of the writings.
    God Passes By is a religious text, not a research paper.
    The hundred-dollar difference is that I am not claiming it is scripture whereas Christians are claiming it is exactly what Jesus said and Jesus is supposed to be God incarnate. Shoghi Effendi was just the great grandson of Baha’u’llah, the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith, not a Messenger of God, and he never claimed to be inerrant.

    The other hundred-dollar difference is that the Baha’i Faith is recent history so Shoghi Effendi had access to primary source material and interviews others had with those cited in God Passes By.
    No, Dale was not saying that at all. He was saying that Shoghi Efffendi translated Nabil’s Narritive from Arabic and Persian into English, since Shoghi Effendi was proficient in both languages.

    The Dawn-Breakers

    The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation or Nabíl's Narrative (Táríkh-i-Nabíl) is a historical account of the early Bábí and Bahá'í Faiths penned by Nabíl-i-A`zam in 1887–88. The English translation by Shoghi Effendi was published in 1932.[1]

    The book relies mainly on the memoirs of surviving early Bábís, and Nabíl himself was a participant in many of the scenes which he recounts.
    The Dawn-Breakers - Wikipedia

    Nabil's Narrative was *part of* the primary source material that Shoghi Effendi used to write God Passes By. That is why Dale said “If I'm not mistaken, a lot of the material in God Passes By is based on The Dawnbreakers.” The Dawnbreakers is firsthand accounts and the printed book includes many footnotes.
    No, The Dawnbreakers is a historical account of the early Bábí and Bahá'í Faiths penned by Nabíl-i-A`zam in 1887–88. Shoghi Effendi’s translated The Dawnbreakers from the Persian and Arabic into English.
    A historical account of what happened in the early days of religious history is not a courtroom.
    I am very well aware of how the Gospels came to be written. We are not talking about the Writings of Baha’u’llah which is Original scripture. We are talking about an account of the history of the Baha’i Faith as closely as it can be approximated.
    This is just the personal opinion of one Baha’i. I absolutely do not agree but I did not want to edit Dale’s original post. We have much more information to go on in order to know about Baha’u’llah’s life than we have to go on to know about the life of Jesus. There is no comparison whatsoever!!!! There were newspapers in Europe that wrote about the Bab and Baha’u’llah. This is chronicled history. No such claim can be made for the life of Jesus.

    God Passes By is not the only book that has been written about the history. The Dawnbreakers (Nabil’s Narrative) is firsthand accounts from those who knew the Bab and Baha’u’llah personally. The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, covers the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892. Do we have any firsthand accounts of someone who knew Jesus written in their own pen? Hardly.

    Moreover, there are Baha’is alive today who have distant relatives who knew Baha’u’llah personally.
    That is not what he said. He said “They aren't meant to be taken as the authoritative documentary evidence of what happened. They are accounts of what happened and are subject to limitations inherent in the field of history.”
    As a skeptic, if you really wanted to know, you would not be asking me. You would do your own research. There are other sources to refer to that tell the history.
    He was not referring to Messengers of God.
    There is no reason to believe anything was made up because there would be no motive for making anything up since there was nothing to be gained.

    Believe whatever you wish. It does not matter to me or to God or to Baha’u’llah.
     
  8. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    52,743
    Ratings:
    +12,058
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    What evidence or variables do you think @ecco (or me, since I feel pretty much the same way on this point) is overlooking?

    From what I've seen so far, the Baha'i faith seems to follow the pattern of many other religions. What makes the Baha'i faith so special thay we should regard it as more special than all other religions?
     
  9. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    3,911
    Ratings:
    +2,069
    Religion:
    atheist
    We've been over and over the same ground many times. You will continue to believe your religion is special because you need to believe your religion is special. You will continue to believe the validity of your "evidence" (writings, predictions, etc) because you need to believe the validity of your "evidence". You will continue to blindly accept the comments of your fellow Bahais because you need to accept the comments of your fellow Bahais.

    You, rightfully, fear and dismiss skepticism. Deep down you know that if you applied even a little skepticism to your beliefs, the whole phony tower would come crumbling down. So you avoid it at all costs.

    You can have the last words if you want. But I am through with this thread.
     
  10. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    5,457
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    The *context* of my bringing up hasty generalization is that it is a hasty generalization to conclude that there cannot be one true religion just because many religions believe they are the one true religion but are wrong about that.

    Just because many religions are wrong (about being the one true religion) that does not mean that all religions are wrong about being the one true religion. One religion could be right about being the one true religion.
    Just because all the cars in the used car lot are junky that does not mean that there is not a good car in the new car lot.

    But regarding your question, I do not know what evidence you have looked at so I do not know what you might have overlooked.
    What makes it special is that it is the religion that God revealed for this age in history, so it is the religion God wants everyone to follow, the reason being that it has what humanity needs in this age, the *new* message of the oneness of mankind and blueprint instructions to build a new world order. It also has *new* teachings and laws that are pertinent to the times we live in.
     
  11. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    5,457
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    I never used the word special. All religions are special in their own ways.

    I only ever said my religion is new and thus has a new message, and new teachings and laws that humanity needs in this new age. It that sense it is a unique religion.

    There is no way that you can know why I believe what I believe. I do not *need* to believe anything, but I believe my religion is new and different than the other religions because it is.
    I do not *need* to believe anything. I believe what I do because of the evidence.

    Just because your opinion differs from mine as to what constitutes valid evidence that does not mean you are right and I am wrong. All you have is a personal opinion and I have a belief. Your personal opinion is no better than my belief unless you have evidence to support it. Unproven suspicions are not evidence. That would not work in any court of law.
    Why do you speak for me? I do not fear or dismiss skepticism but I dismiss allegations that have no evidence to back them up because that is haughty and unjust.
    Again you speak for me like you know me. Why not just speak for yourself? What do you gain by critiquing me? Psych 101.

    I do not avoid skepticism but I avoid narrow-mindedness at all costs because it makes it impossible for people to ever see anything except what they already believed in the first place. All they do is confirm their bias. If you are looking for a needle in a haystack you will probably find one but that does not ruin the whole haystack. Logic 101.
    I am not only through with this thread, I am through with this forum for the most part. I have returned to the forum from whence I came which is owned and run by a confirmed atheist who treats everyone with dignity and respect and in a just fashion. He totally disagrees with me about the Baha'i Faith but he speaks only for himself, never for other people. He listens to what other people have to say even though he disagrees with them and he does not label and criticize people. That is what makes his forum so special.

    There is no way to have any kind of fruitful dialogue when people insist they are right all the time. Saying *I believe x* is not the same thing as saying I am right. I believe I am right but I do not expect anyone else to believe what I do because we are separate people.
     
  12. ftacky

    ftacky Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    63
    Ratings:
    +24
    Religion:
    christian
    MILITANT ATHEISM EXPOSED: DEFEATING MILITANT ATHEISTS’ AGENDA WITH FACTS AND REASON

    Atheism: nothing times nothing = everything

    The rise of the 'New Atheists'
    November 08, 2006|By Simon Hooper for CNN
    With his latest book "The God Delusion" currently sitting comfortably among Amazon.com's top sellers and on both the New York Times and the UK's Sunday Times bestseller lists, Richard Dawkins will no doubt appreciate the irony of friends and families exchanging copies on Christmas Day.

    But the Oxford University professor, who made his name as a passionate apostle of Darwinian evolutionary theory in the 1970s with "The Selfish Gene," is merely the loudest and most notorious voice among a group of thinkers and writers who make up a movement dubbed the "New Atheism."

    Others include Sam Harris, author of another bestseller "Letter to a Christian Nation" which explores the influence of Christian fundamentalism on U.S. President George W. Bush, philosopher Daniel Dennett and columnist Christopher Hitchens, who is set to join the fray next year with his latest work, "God is Not Great: The Case Against Religion."

    What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.

    "We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster," says Dawkins. "But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very, very improbable."

    Their tone is overtly confrontational rather than gently persuasive. Harris talks of exerting so much pressure that it becomes "too embarrassing" to believe in God, while Dawkins describes the U.S. as living in a "theocratic Dark Age."

    But while the New Atheists may be loud, outspoken and popular reading matter among the sort of book buyers who use Amazon or read the New York Times, is there any evidence to suggest they are doing anything more than preaching to the (non-) converted?

    In fact, the vehemence of their arguments can largely be understood as a frustrated backlash against a religious revival that is still gathering pace, especially in the U.S.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. lukethethird

    lukethethird Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    680
    Ratings:
    +271
    Religion:
    Xian
    Wow, talk about your fear mongering.
     
  14. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    3,911
    Ratings:
    +2,069
    Religion:
    atheist
    What do you have against rational arguments? Why would you prefer irrationality?

    The Cristian fundies have been confrontational since the beginning of Christianity. Need I remind you of the inquisitions and the witch hunts? And, let's not forget the confrontations between Catholics and Protestants and both against Mormons.


    No louder and outspoken than John Hagee and Marylin Hickey.


    FIFY
    In fact, the intensity of their arguments can largely be understood as a well-deserved backlash against oppressive religious bigotry.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    3,911
    Ratings:
    +2,069
    Religion:
    atheist
    Right Wing Conservatives and Cristian Fundamentalists always try to use fear mongering to hype up their followers.

    Fear is the very basis of the Abrahamic religions.
    You're gonna die.
    If you're not a believer, you're gonna go to hell.​

    As ftacky said, he prefers irrationality to rationality.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Audie

    Audie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    7,044
    Ratings:
    +3,194
    Religion:
    None
    So, as I asked elsewhere, what do you propose to do
    after you get yourself and others whipped up to a
    frothing righteous rage against these horrible atheists?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Truly Enlightened

    Truly Enlightened Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2017
    Messages:
    944
    Ratings:
    +412
    If you own and run your own forum, your success just might depend on your developing the patience and tolerance of a monk. This includes turning a blind eye to the littering of posts with self-serving, and sect-promoting cultist referencing materials. It might include ignoring those using others as their personal platform to blatantly proselytize, sell, and editorialize their cultist views and beliefs. It might include ignoring and tolerating personal appeals to emotions, the total absence of objective evidence, and the use of blatant misdirection and misinformation. All in an attempt to conceal and mask a clear and obvious burden of proof. Manipulative illusion is the greatest enemy of the truth.

    This person is obviously endowed with intellectual and spiritual wisdom, far beyond that of mortal man. Maybe, he should be the next candidate for a Messenger of God????
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. Truly Enlightened

    Truly Enlightened Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2017
    Messages:
    944
    Ratings:
    +412

    I seriously doubt that Hitchens will be joining any fray next year. And his book has been out since 2007.

    As an adult, if you want to believe in talking animals, unverifiable miracles and prophesies, God(s), myths, superstitions, and anything that can suspend or violate the natural laws of nature, then that is your business. Unfortunately, you choose to share your business with others, including those who don't share your beliefs. You seem to want your business to be accepted as reality, simply because of the sheer numbers that share your beliefs. Fortunately, it is the requirements of science that stand between certainty, and all superstitious belief, and irrational assertions. Science is not based on the popularity of any belief. It is based only on the amount of evidence that it can interpret. As long as your beliefs stayed in the homes and churches, skeptics and critical thinkers couldn't care less. They know that there will always be people out there that will believe in anything, as long as it is well-packaged, sells, and fills some emotional void. People believe in things, simply because they resist change(especially as they age).

    Progressive or Militant Atheists are those people that sense religious belief, as contributing to our societies' decreasing levels of literacy and intelligence. These are the people that sense religious belief, as an insidious encroachment into our public schools, governments(local, state, and federal), and other aspects of our lives. The Constitution not only protects religions from us, but also protects us from religions. These are the people that see kids as young a 3, being shipped off to camps, schools, or other institutes, that are used to spread unfalsifiable religious dogma. These are the people that see the "dumbing down of America", as a real threat to America's world leadership in the development of new science and technologies. Finally, these are the people that provide comfort, and a place of refuge, for those people wrestling with doubts about their indoctrinated beliefs. These "Militants" are our true modern-day heroes, facing an ocean of cognitive dissonance, institutionalized ignorance, and blind religious fundamentalism. All religions promote elitism and religious intolerance.

    The ingredients for making Atheism disappear, is to simply present less assertions, and more objective facts and evidence. Failing this, to present any examples to demonstrate any parallel links between a God, and any known and provable paranormal or supernatural event. Failing this, to present just one fallacy-free logical argument, which would indicate that only a religious conclusion was possible. You can't provide evidence, examples, or even logic to advance your narrative. Yet you call those requesting extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claims, "overtly confrontational", and being vehement in their arguments. Yet you still want to peddle your beliefs to your children, and the rest of us, without any evidence whatsoever. This is not a belief if you own a dog or a cat. This is a belief, that all the physics underlying all that is, and will ever be(including an afterlife), can be replaced with one, or thousands of supernatural entities. And, that our reality is only the creation of these entities.

    If this is the sort of nonsense you wish to believe and peddle, then boy, do I have a bridge to sell you. There are other places to peddle this nonsense, but not to our children, not to our government, not to the general public, and certainly not preached in any science or institute for higher learning. So, unless you CAN present any of the arguments stated, your sense of outrage is not only unwarranted, but expected. What is your view on Karma and Feng Shui?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  19. tas8831

    tas8831 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    573
    Ratings:
    +409
  20. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    3,911
    Ratings:
    +2,069
    Religion:
    atheist
    That's an assertive website agenda. I thought I'd take a look. This was a category that looked interesting:
    Inaccuracies: Great minds who have been erroneously labeled atheists.

    So I checked it out. I found a list of names of somewhat famous people. According to ftacky Darwin is erroneously listed as an atheist. That may be, but the people who label Darwin an atheist are not atheists, they are creos like ftacky.

    Also on the list was Galileo. Maybe it's my foggy mind, but I can't remember any atheist making the claim that Galileo was an atheist.

    This is just another example of the dishonesty exhibited by many fundy religionists.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...