Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[Trailblazer]

To be reliable it has to support a claim regardless of who reads it.

Who says it has to support a claim regardless of who reads it?
We are not talking about science here...
Religion cannot be verified in the same way that science can be.

Most Christians will not accept your evidence, nor will most Muslims or most members of any religion other than yours.

But what does that mean?
Do you think that "what people believe" has anything to do with what is actually truth from God?
Our beliefs do not determine truth from God... God determines that.
We simply discover God's truth or fail to do so.

One of us is right and the others have some truth but not the whole truth.
It is your mission, should you choose to accept it, to figure out which one of us that is.

 

[Jim]

Most Christians will not accept your evidence, nor will most Muslims or most members of any religion other than yours.

- or even some members of her own religion.

 

[Jim]

One of us is right and the others have some truth but not the whole truth.

- or maybe all of us have some truth but not the whole truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

- or maybe all of us have some truth but not the whole truth.

That is true. None of us has the whole truth because only God has the whole truth, which is revealed progressively in stages.

 

[Shad]

Okay then, please tell me what some of those “better ways” are and explain why they are better and how they would accomplish what Messengers accomplish.

Simultaneous messengers. Messengers being fluent in a language highly improbable for them to know. Like the Olmecs knowing Japanese or Latin. These are better due to contemporary confirmation outside likely ranges of influence. The language example would likewise demonstrate something highly improbable thus far more miracle-ish.

I do not know what text you are referring to.

The one you linked.

Nothing I have cited states that it was God’s Goal to get the message out to all of humanity right away.

Then as I said I do not see an issue unless said God uses belief as a criteria of judgement.

Call it whatever you want to call it, all religions have a founder of some kind. They do not all believe the same things about their founder, but they believe in God because of their religion that has a founder.

You misunderstand. It is your dogma that various people are all talking about same God rather than their own view of God which may or may not be mutually exclusive to your own. Said dogma excludes the possibility of frauds, delusions, etc.

I am talking history. According to my religion, God has sent Prophets since the dawn of human history. Just because we have no records of those Prophets or their religions does not mean that did not exist.

You are not talking about history you are making assertions based on dogma without evidence and calling it history. Nothing more. Argument from ignorance.

“And now regarding thy question, “How is it that no records are to be found concerning the Prophets that have preceded Adam, the Father of Mankind, or of the kings that lived in the days of those Prophets?” Know thou that the absence of any reference to them is no proof that they did not actually exist. That no records concerning them are now available, should be attributed to their extreme remoteness, as well as to the vast changes which the earth hath undergone since their time.

Moreover such forms and modes of writing as are now current amongst men were unknown to the generations that were before Adam. There was even a time when men were wholly ignorant of the art of writing, and had adopted a system entirely different from the one which they now use. For a proper exposition of this an elaborate explanation would be required.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 172-173

That is exactly what it is; the people of the older religions believe that the new Messenger is a false prophet (fraud).

Argument from ignorance again. You never considered people thought he was a fraud because of his errors in logic?

But how would any of those convey all the information that was revealed by a Messenger like Baha’u’llah, who wrote over 15.000 Tablets?

If God can not wait or use a better method of communication that isn't my problem. Perhaps God should get a large HDD. You are making an excuse for the ultimate powers failure to make use of such a power. God... creator of the universe.... stuck with tablets.... Not even ones from Apple... /smh

Explain what?

Whatever you mean by "I certainly do not believe that God owes me a direct conversation, or that this is even possible, but that is another subject I can explain later if you are interested."

 

[Jim]

I’m not sure I’m what anyone would call an atheist or agnostic. I’m not sure I’m not. I don’t have any opinion about whether or not whatever God you’re talking about exists or is real. I haven’t seen any arguments either way, that look convincing to me.

I’ll try to answer your questions based on what I see Baha’i scriptures saying about God. If you’re talking about some other God, let me know.

Is there any reason to think that God, if God exists, would want 100% of people in the world to believe in Him?

If God wanted everyone to believe in Him, what do you think God would do in order to accomplish that?

Do you think that God can show up on earth? If so, how would God do that?

My answer to all of those questions is the same: The God I see in Baha’i scriptures is so arbitrary and unpredictable that it would be be impossible for anyone to guess what He would do, or how, about anything, under any circumstances. Any answer that anyone could think of to each of those questions might be true, or false.

I do have some feelings about those questions though. If there’s a God who can do whatever he wants to, then obviously he doesn’t want 100% of the people in the world to believe in him.

Are you asking, do I think that a God like the one or ones in Baha’i scriptures, if there actually is any such thing, could show up on earth, and if so how? Not the one he calls “God in His essence.” That would be impossible, he says so himself. If “show up on earth” means creating someone that he counts as himself showing up on earth, then obviously according to Baha’i scriptures, that’s what he does. It’s true by definition. Then if we’re defining some characters in some origin stories of some religions as God showing up on earth, I would ask, so what? What difference does that make?

 

[Trailblazer]

Simultaneous messengers. Messengers being fluent in a language highly improbable for them to know. Like the Olmecs knowing Japanese or Latin. These are better due to contemporary confirmation outside likely ranges of influence. The language example would likewise demonstrate something highly improbable thus far more miracle-ish.

I see no reason why we would need more than one Messenger at a time, if that Messenger had the knowledge of God, which is all knowledge. That is what I believe they have. Having many Messengers at a time could lead to competition and it would be like God competing with God.

Messengers do not want to be known for their miracles although that can all perform miracles. The best proof of a Messenger is His Own Person. That is the miracle. For example, regarding Jesus:

“But in the day of the Manifestation the people with insight see that all the conditions of the Manifestation are miracles, for They are superior to all others, and this alone is an absolute miracle. Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ.” Some Answered Questions, p. 101

Then as I said I do not see an issue unless said God uses belief as a criteria of judgement.

I do not believe He does. We all judge ourselves after we die and estimate the worth of our deeded and realize what our hands have wrought.

You are not talking about history you are making assertions based on dogma without evidence and calling it history. Nothing more. Argument from ignorance.

No, argument from scriptures.

Argument from ignorance again. You never considered people thought he was a fraud because of his errors in logic?

No, how could they? They never even bother to look at the new Messenger and what He wrote. If they did they would realize there are no errors in logic.

If God can not wait or use a better method of communication that isn't my problem. Perhaps God should get a large HDD. You are making an excuse for the ultimate powers failure to make use of such a power. God... creator of the universe.... stuck with tablets.... Not even ones from Apple... /smh

His communication was just fine. There is no better Method. If there was, an omniscient God would have used it.

Whatever you mean by "I certainly do not believe that God owes me a direct conversation, or that this is even possible, but that is another subject I can explain later if you are interested."

That means that God cannot communicate directly with anyone except His Messengers, to whom God communicates through the Holy Spirit. In the following passage, the pure and stainless Soul is the Messenger of God.

“And since there can be no tie of direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation, and no resemblance whatever can exist between the transient and the Eternal, the contingent and the Absolute, He hath ordained that in every age and dispensation a pure and stainless Soul be made manifest in the kingdoms of earth and heaven. Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself.....The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.””
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

 

[ChristineM]

No, there is only one God. It is not the abrahamic God; it is the God of ALL the religions.

When I said the Baha’i God, I meant the God that is described in the Baha’i Writings, as opposed to the God of the Bible. The nature of God never changes, but the way God is described in scriptures changes over time, in order to accommodate the increasing ability of humans to comprehend more complex concepts about God over time.

Ok, you need to tell half the worlds population they guessed wrong about the abrahamic god and another 30 some percent their god or gods have been superceded by your god

Everyone is entitled to whatever belief or non-belief that they hold.

Absolutely, they also have the entitlement to education.

The existence of God cannot be independently validated.
I do not think you want to go around the evidence block again... I know I don’t.

How convenient. Oh yes please, the evidence of a compassionate creator creating childhood leukemia, the evidence of omnipotence being impossible if you exist. And many more evidences people tend to ignore because they are inconvenient. I think we have been here before.

It is not an opinion, it is a belief. It is a belief that is supported by empirical evidence, unless you have seen God show up on earth.

By the process of deductive reasoning we can conclude that if God exists, God wants our faith, since God does not prove He exists.

Belief is opinion because no evidence exists. Do you really think that atheism, agnosticism or such a wide variety of different faiths would exist if any valid evidence, empirical or otherwise existed for a god?. If any such evidence existed it would end faith. You dont need faith if you have evidence.

Your last paragraph... What???

 

[ChristineM]

A lantern is not the light, it needs fuel and a wick to produce the light. The light can shine from us but it is lit externally. From this point one must consider there is 5 levels of Spirit.

Sorry, what has this to do with biology??? The mind does not work by metaphor

I like this I found, it is quoted by from Ali.

"Dost thou reckon thyself only a puny form
When within thee the universe is folded?"

A 100+ year old quote from a guy who knew less than average about cosmology..

Consider what can result in the material world by the splitting of an Atom. Who could have imagined how much energy was contained within! Well it was those that know we are more than body, that have the greatest insight, like this ancient Persian mystic poem, also quoted by Baha'u'llah has recorded,

Split the atom’s heart, and lo!
Within it thou wilt find a sun.

That predated any Scientific understanding.

You are confusing fission and fusion, not surprising when using quotes based on guesswork and not knowledge

 

[ChristineM]

Sadly like a creationist, when a person has no evidence deny evidence presented by the other side.

Seems to be the case.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You are confusing fission and fusion, not surprising when using quotes based on guesswork and not knowledge

The confusion is this world

I will leave you to partake of it, in any way you so choose too and I wish you always well.

Peace to you and all.

 

[ChristineM]

The confusion is this world

I will leave you to partake of it, in any way you so choose too and I wish you always well.

Peace to you and all.

No, you confusion is misrepresentation of biology ( and neuroscience but i cant blame you for that)

Cheers

 

[LuisDantas]

Who says it has to support a claim regardless of who reads it?
We are not talking about science here...
Religion cannot be verified in the same way that science can be.

Often enough, but not always. And when it can not, it should not expect to be convincing.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No, you confusion is misrepresentation of biology ( and neuroscience but i cant blame you for that)

Cheers

You are free to quote all the undeniable proof as to where mind resides to correct any confusion you see I have .

I do not need you to do this in case you are wondering , only do it if it makes you happy, as Life is so great!

Peace be upon you

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, there does not need to be a deeper reason FOR ME; what is written should be the reason, but that depends upon what you are reading and how you interpret what is written.

I think you misunderstood me; I’m saying that if a character is fabricated, then the fabrication is the ultimate authority on that character’s nature.

For real characters that are described in text, we can ask ourselves whether the textual description matches reality. However, when a character isn’t made to correspond to reality, we don't need to ask ourselves this.

Also, sometimes one needs to read between the lines. Where in the Bible does it explicitly say that God wants everyone to believe in Him?

I’m not sure offhand... though I think that if you actually wanted to know the answer to this question, you’d be asking a Christian, not an atheist.

Besides, I was asking atheists and agnostics what they think about the hypothetical god, whether they think that god would want everyone to believe in him. I assumed they would not derive their answer from the Bible since they do not believe in the Bible.

But that’s way too open-ended to have a single answer. What would a hypothetical ghost want? Depends on the ghost. What would a hypothetical witch want? Depends on the witch. What would a hypothetical god want? Depends on the god.

Of course, it is logically possible for everyone to believe in God and of course if that was God’s objective, to get 100% of people in the world to believe He exists, God would know exactly how to accomplish that objective, since God is omniscient.

So the fact that much less than 100% of the people on Earth believe in God is intentional? You believe that God used an unreliable means of communication - i.e. revelation through “messengers” and scripture - because he didn’t want to reach everyone? Do I understand you correctly?

You make a good point – why not?

You make another good point. We believers do not have the answers to these questions. I was not suggesting that nonbelievers have the answers either, I was just asking them to use their imagination.

Some atheists insist that God could show up because God is omnipotent, but they have been unable to tell me how God could do that. I was just trying to find out if any atheists here have any ideas.

I gave you the way: magic poofing.

It seems to me that part of the point of a god is to try act as a cover when we don’t know how something happened.

Any description of a God or how it’s supposed to work - including the ones you’ve given - have all been so hopelessly conflicted that I haven’t been able to find a spot to begin on any of them. You might as well ask me how I would figure out how much carpet a room that’s a square circle would need; I can calculate area for all sorts of shapes, but I wouldn’t know where to begin calculating the area for a shape that can’t exist.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Any description of a God or how it’s supposed to work - including the ones you’ve given - have all been so hopelessly conflicted that I haven’t been able to find a spot to begin on any of them.

One starts with ones own self. God is virtues and all Gods Messages are calling us to live the virtues.

Thus the more virtues we live, the more we open our heart to God. The key here is to not look for or find any fault in others, but to be rid of all fault in our own selves. If we see fault in others, it is but a potential reflection of our own self.

Thus the more good we see, the more of God we see.

Peace be with you and all.

 

[ChristineM]

You are free to quote all the undeniable proof as to where mind resides to correct any confusion you see I have .

I do not need you to do this in case you are wondering , only do it if it makes you happy, as Life is so great!

Peace be upon you

Not a problem, there are plenty of of evidence about. Of course you are free to deny the evidence but thats your choice.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.01122

https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7151

https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7151

https://arxiv.org/abs/0803.1633

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One starts with ones own self. God is virtues and all Gods Messages are calling us to live the virtues.

Thus the more virtues we live, the more we open our heart to God. The key here is to not look for or find any fault in others, but to be rid of all fault in our own selves. If we see fault in others, it is but a potential reflection of our own self.

Thus the more good we see, the more of God we see.

Peace be with you and all.

It seems like you’re expressing an idea that I’ve had many times, just in a different way: that Gods are anthropomorphisms of human ideas of virtue and perfection. I’ve always seen this as reason to believe that gods were fabricated. I take it that you don’t share this approach, right?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

What you say makes sense, but what reason do you have to think that God has not revealed Himself to everyone?

But even if God did reveal Himself to everyone, what reason do you have to think that everyone would believe in Him?

If something has been revealed to a person, the person believes in it by definition. If the person does not believe in something, then by definition it has not been revealed to them because if it had, they would believe in it.

 

[Jim]

That is true. None of us has the whole truth because only God has the whole truth, which is revealed progressively in stages.

I’ve been browsing through this thread trying to understand what it’s about, for you. It might help me understand what it’s all about, if you can think of some good this discussion might possibly do for someone. Can you think of some difference this conversation might make for someone, some good it might possibly do for someone, to understand or believe whatever you’re trying to say?