Religion and Atheism

[ecco]

More specifically, the Bible stories are not even on a par with comic book stories.

Could you elaborate upon that?

When I was a kid I, like most kids of my age back then, read comic books. Each one was a new adventure for someone like Superman. I realized that Superman was fictional. But the storylines made logical sense.

Then I went to Sunday school. The storylines of Adam & Eve and the talking snake and Noah and all the animals on a little boat were far sillier than anything in my comics. I lasted three Sundays. Then, pondering, I realized that God et al was just silly stories. As I got older, I found more and more reason to support that early decision.

 

[ecco]

I am just going by what I have heard atheists say. There are some atheists on this forum who have said they do not want to believe in God and I have an atheist friend on my forum who says he does not want to believe in God. Most of these atheists have given reasons why they do not want to believe in God, mainly the fact that they have no NEED for a God in their life.

You, or they, seem to be confusing need and want. Everybody wants to win the lottery.

You would live in Paradise but you won’t get 72 virgins, sorry.

That whole 72 virgins thing is really overblown. It's another example of people believing in and hoping for something without really thinking about it.

Eternity is a verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng time. 72 Virgins are 72 virgins for just over two months. Then the men are faced with 72 nagging females for evvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvver.

There is only One God. It is the One True God that Baha’u’llah described,

My understanding of Bahai is that the "God Muslims refer to as Allah" is the same God the Christians refer to as Jesus/God and the Jews refer to as God and the Hindus refer to as Vishnu, Sri (Lakshmi), Shiva, Sati, or Brahma.

Therein lies the problem. All these deities are very different. Therefore, the basis for Bahai is unrealistic.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I should have said if there is a red car in my driveway there is a red car in my driveway, not because I believe there is a red car in my driveway. If there is a red car in my driveway and I denied that there was a red car in my driveway, it would still be there.

I agree, with a couple of changes to your statement: Comparing a physical anything, when evidence can easily be found to falsify a claim of existence, can't be compared to anything such as God, where no evidence can be found to falsify its existence.

Conversely, it doesn't matter how many people do not believe that God is real, it will never make God unreal if God is real.

There is no evidence for God that is clear to everyone, but the evidence we have is clear to almost everyone.

I personally do not think that government should get involved in restricting personal rights and freedoms based upon religious beliefs.

Do you have any verifiable proof of that, scientific proof? It that was true, why are some people moral whereas others are immoral? Do you think we inherit morality from our parents? How then can we explain moral parents who have immoral children?

How do you think that happens?

No, but in the wild, other species destroy each other. Humans do not destroy themselves, they destroy each other because they lack morality.

I cannot prove that religious beliefs come from a God. I can only provide evidence.

Conversely, it is because of our brain's ability to compartmentalize information, and cognitive dissonance, that even very smart people can convince themselves that there is no God. The human condition itself, is not logical. Then again, what is logical to one person is illogical to another person.

I do not believe I know, I believe and I know.
I believe because I cannot prove God exists.
I know because I am sure God exists, but I do not know in the sense you think.

I do not know in this sense...
Know: be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.https://www.google.com/search

I know in this sense....
Know: to have information in your mind; to be aware of something: KNOW | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Hard Atheists also called positive Atheists do think they know that God does not exist.

However, most Atheists do not believe that they know that God does not exist. They simply know that they have no evidence to believe that a God exist. If they could procure the evidence they wanted, Atheism would disappear.

The problem is that the only evidence that is available from God is religion. It has always been this way ad for various reasons Atheists do not accept religion as evidence.

I never claimed that my crisis of faith is evidence of anything. It is just my testimonial as you said. My religion does not impinge upon the government of this country, or any country. Baha’is are entirely non-political.

I do not take the stand I do against abortion based upon religious views. I take it based upon my own sense of morality.

But who cares about the unborn child who never had a right to live? An embryo is a human life. This is not a religious view, it is a scientific fact.

“The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.”
A Scientific View of When Life Begins

It really all boils down to selfishness, a teenager or adult woman who does not want to be “inconvenienced” for nine months. Back when I was a teenager there was no question as to what a girl would do if she got pregnant. She would have the child and usually adopt it out. My best friend in high school did this. But now it is easier to just get on the operating table and be done with it. Thank God there IS an afterlife. Abortion would be much worse if that was that baby’s only chance to life and it was taken away.

Yeah there is, it is called abstinence. It is 100% effective.

Do you think that most unwanted pregnancies came about when a woman was using the most effective methods of birth control? I highly doubt that could be the case, given the number of abortions taking place in this country.

http://www.ashasexualhealth.org/pdfs/ContraceptiveOptions.pdf

I see you've started back again proselytising for your faith, by cut, copying, and pasting prompt-specific quotes, from your man-made books of quotes and personal revelations. Once the quote-mining begins the argument has already been lost. These quotes have no relevance in science, and cannot be used to evidence reality. They are at best an obtuse distraction, and at worst more sermonizing religious propaganda. And you were doing so well at thinking for yourself.

I have no idea what new changes you mean, since you've never mentioned what they were. Simply adding the conjunction "if" makes no difference to the point I was making. You were taking something tangible and easily verifiable, and trying to compare it to something that is intangible and can't be verified. That is a false equivocation fallacy. Whether you affirm or deny the existence of the car in the driveway, has nothing to do with whether the car exists in the driveway or not. Whether you confirm or deny the existence of God, has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. Although the former can easily be verified, but the latter can never be verified. There is no evidence to falsify pixies, dragons, a flying tea pot, miracles, the power of prayer, Messengers, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, etc. Does this mean that the default position is that they all exist, until we can prove that they don't? Does the lack of evidence now become the evidence for the belief. Just more convoluted logic and pseudo-sophistry.

My statement was, "Oh, unless the woman is a corpse, then there is no "fool-proof" method for her to avoid getting pregnant DURING SEX". Now after reading my comments again, how is "abstinence" relevant? If you were abstaining, you wouldn't be having sex, right? Why would anyone practice birth control or safe sex, if they were abstaining from having sex? So do you now agree that there is no fool-proof method for not getting pregnant DURING SEX?

Do you have any verifiable proof of that, scientific proof? It that was true, why are some people moral whereas others are immoral? Do you think we inherit morality from our parents? How then can we explain moral parents who have immoral children?

If you remember nothing, please remember that survival is the prime driving force in Nature. The second is the Mating drive. Anything that interferes with either, will eventually be deleted from the gene pool. Therefore, killing within a species would eventually be discouraged. Basic morality is the innate hard-wired behavioral instinct, that is represented by members of the species committing the least amount of harm and discomfort to others within the species. The principles of good or bad, right or wrong, only represent how these levels are expressed within the population. What is it that determines how our behavior is expressed? It is our genetic make-up and other environmental variables(nature v nurture). Where do we inherited our genes from? Our parents. I can provide more information regarding Molecular Genetics, and the relationship between protein synthesis and behavior. That is, if you are really interested in learning. Maybe, we can start with baby steps first?

My question was simple. Do you believe God exists, or do you know that God exists? I'm not interested in any other of your distracting qualifiers(sure or think). If you think you know, or sure you know, or think you are sure you know, or even believe that you think that you are sure you know, then what evidence can you present that can support any of these positions? You remember, the same evidence that you demand others present to you. I guess that all that gibberish double-talking nonsense meant, is that you believe that God exists, because you really want to believe that God exists. And since there is no evidence to know that god doesn't exists, you will just keep believing that He does exist.

I'm not interested in your silly equivocation fallacies, or you trying to conflate an embryo with a human newborn. Clearly, you don't understand science as well. Since you don't believe that Governments should restrict the rights and freedoms of others, then why do you want to restrict the rights and freedoms of women who decide to terminate their pregnancy? I have no problems with your moral position in protecting the rights of a human embryo. I just feel that the rights given to all of us by our Constitution(9th and 14th Amendments), should not be threatened by the encroachment of narrowminded hypocritical one-dimensional views. What other rights and freedoms are you willing to sacrifice, to give credence to your perceived moral high ground? If you believe that all life should be protected, then why do you make exceptions for some, and not for others? Incest? Too bad. Rape? Too bad, her fault. Physical defects? Tough luck. Peer pressure and Naivety? Too bad, still your fault. Faulty condom or IUD? Too bad. Handicapped or mentally challenged mother? Sorry, the embryo's life is all that matters. Wow, I am not even religious, and I have infinitely more social compassion and empathy than you, apparently. Since there are no shades in your world, I guess you would see abortion, only as teens being selfish to avoid being inconvenienced. Right?

 

[Trailblazer]

Wow! These last three paragraphs really resonate with me. As you said, this makes you a "Trailblazer" and my similar feelings make me "Not your average Mormon."

That might be why we get along so well, but I like Mormons anyhow, even the more regimented ones.
Joseph Smith is highly respected by the Baha'i Faith, he is considered a seer.
Moreover, I consider Mormon beliefs much more progressive than traditional Christian beliefs, in keeping with the new age.

Also, courtesy is SUCH an important Baha'i teaching, and I have yet to meet a rude Mormon. Of course my only encounters are with the boys who ride around on bikes or walk in neighborhoods, or on forums. They are so polite. i do not get out much except to go to work, and I see them coming and going, because I ride my bike to work.

Who wants to be average anyway? The average person does not have 10 cats but i could not live without them.

 

[Trailblazer]

You went from being an atheist to believing in God and Messengers just by reading in two weeks?!?

Yep.

And I just ran across a quote this morning that might explain why that happened.

“Be thankful to God for having enabled you to recognise His Cause. Whoever has received this blessing must, prior to his acceptance, have performed some deed which, though he himself was unaware of its character, was ordained by God as a means whereby he has been guided to find and embrace the Truth. As to those who have remained deprived of such a blessing, their acts alone have hindered them from recognising the truth of this Revelation. We cherish the hope that you, who have attained to this light, will exert your utmost to banish the darkness of superstition and unbelief from the midst of the people. May your deeds proclaim your faith and enable you to lead the erring into the paths of eternal salvation. The memory of this night will never be forgotten. May it never be effaced by the passage of time, and may its mention linger for ever on the lips of men.”
The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation, p. 586

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry, that was supposed to be "angel" not "angle".

But that still works because....
God does have lots of angels, but God does not always send an angel.

 

[Trailblazer]

When I was a kid I, like most kids of my age back then, read comic books. Each one was a new adventure for someone like Superman. I realized that Superman was fictional. But the storylines made logical sense.

Then I went to Sunday school. The storylines of Adam & Eve and the talking snake and Noah and all the animals on a little boat were far sillier than anything in my comics. I lasted three Sundays. Then, pondering, I realized that God et al was just silly stories. As I got older, I found more and more reason to support that early decision.

Okay, now I understand.
You must have been a smart kid, as most kids do not realize how silly that is and so they go on to become full fledged Christians. I have lots of friends on other forums who are EX-Christians but they were Christians until adulthood. I think it is really sad that so many people have turned away from God just because of Christianity. In the United States, most atheists in our generation were formerly Christians. Back in the 1950s when I was raised, 95% of people in the United States were Christians so my family was a notable exception. Thank God for that because most children raised as Christians remain Christians, although that is slowly changing in this modern information age.

Baha'is do not interpret the Adam and Eve story like Christians do.
We believe the whole Adam and Eve story was an allegory: 30: ADAM AND EVE

 

[Trailblazer]

You, or they, seem to be confusing need and want. Everybody wants to win the lottery.

Okay I understand that analogy... Some atheists have told me they do not want to believe in God maybe that is just because they think that goal is unattainable.
But it could also be that some atheists think that believing in God is more trouble than it's worth.

Psychologically, what happens when we realize we cannot have something we adjust and then we say we do not need it... Like my septic system which has been down for three months. I do not have time to figure out what is going on right now so I have no indoor plumbing. Good thing I have a shower at work and live on a secluded acre in the country.

So people get by without believing in God, and in this life they might not feel the repercussions, but those will be realized in the AFTERlife.

That whole 72 virgins thing is really overblown. It's another example of people believing in and hoping for something without really thinking about it.

That is true, and if they had even bothered to do some research they would know that was a bad translation of the Qur'an. It meant raisins, not virgins, but not the kind of raisins we eat. Raisins is symbolic for something wonderful, not for a physical reality.

Again, it is all psychological. Those Muslims wanted to believe it was virgins that they would get, so they did not question if that made any sense or not.... It is the same with Christians who believe that their bodies will rise from the grave when Jesus returns and they will have a glorified body. They want a glorified body, so nothing I say is going to change their beliefs.

Eternity is a verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng time. 72 Virgins are 72 virgins for just over two months. Then the men are faced with 72 nagging females for evvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvver.

but as you said, they did not think it through... I mean the first thing we have to realize is just how long eternity is. That is why it is SO important to end up in the right location.

My understanding of Bahai is that the "God Muslims refer to as Allah" is the same God the Christians refer to as Jesus/God and the Jews refer to as God and the Hindus refer to as Vishnu, Sri (Lakshmi), Shiva, Sati, or Brahma.

Therein lies the problem. All these deities are very different. Therefore, the basis for Bahai is unrealistic.

You are right, they are all referring to the same God, but that is because there is only One God. They just do not realize it is the same God they are referring to.

The Abrahamic religions all describe God the same way and it is accurate. Where Christians went off track is believing Jesus was God. The non-Abrahamic religions do not have an accurate conception of God and some believe there are many gods. They simply did not accept the update from God that came with Abraham.
It is realistic that eventually everyone will accept the latest update, because 55% of people in the world already believe there is One True God.

 

[wandering peacefully]

So then what IS the reason you reject God/gods, because there is no evidence for their existence?

Right. It is no different than believing in fairies in my mind. I cannot believe in something I find no evidence for except subjective stories people tell. That is not convincing. Coupled with what we actually do know about the physical universe, there leaves little room for this One God of yours.

What do you think, that Christians accept Baha’is? Only if we do not say anything.

But you do not accept Christianity either. You insult them by telling them they got it all wrong. Then you insult non-abrahamics saying they got it wrong because there is only one God not many. Then you insult atheists by claiming they could believe but its too inconvenient for them or they haven't investigated your evidence hard enough or they plain old don't want to. You have said other religions are foolish for believing things they do, but you also believe as many unproven things as they do when it comes to God and prophets. So I'm not sure where you get to insult others but expect them to accept your versions of supernatural beings and events.

I have yet to see a bahai "not say anything" when it comes to the beliefs of others. You have plenty to say and a lot of it is insulting whether you realize it or not. So you shouldn't be surprised when followers of other religions don't accept you with open arms.

 

[Windwalker]

It has nothing to do with philosophy. Religions have to do with philosophy. Atheism does not. Do you believe in fairies and pixies? Is that a philosophical proposition? Do you base your disbelief in fairies and pixies on philosophy or science?

I thought we were done talking to each other. Yet here were are. You keep wanting to try to dance? No, I don't believe in fairies. But you can't tell the difference. That is the problem here.

What "ultimate Truth of Reality" are you talking about?

If you stop and think about it really hard, it might come to you. What can "Ultimate Reality" possibly refer to? Clue. "The Ultimate truth about reality". Start looking there.

Since you are no longer an atheist you shouldn't use phrases like "other atheists".

I said I know longer self-identified with the term "atheist". That does not mean I don't relate to atheism. It is a part of who I am. Sort of like how I can still relate to 10 year olds, on that level, since I was 10, and being 10 is part of who I am today.

Why would I want to wear your label? God and gods are no more real than fairies and pixies. They all come from the same source. They are the creations of man's imaginings.

I don't think you're up to really discussing what I was talking about. That's ok. When you are we can talk then.

 

[Trailblazer]

I see you've started back again proselytising for your faith, by cut, copying, and pasting prompt-specific quotes, from your man-made books of quotes and personal revelations. Once the quote-mining begins the argument has already been lost. These quotes have no relevance in science, and cannot be used to evidence reality. They are at best an obtuse distraction, and at worst more sermonizing religious propaganda. And you were doing so well at thinking for yourself.

I do not know what you are talking about. I did not post any Baha’i Writings in my post. What I quoted was from a research website: A Scientific View of When Life Begins

You were taking something tangible and easily verifiable, and trying to compare it to something that is intangible and can't be verified. That is a false equivocation fallacy.

No, I was not comparing the red car that can be verified to the God who cannot be verified.

Comparing a physical anything, when evidence can easily be found to verify or falsify a claim of existence, can't be compared to anything such as God, where no evidence can be found to verify or falsify its existence.

Whether you affirm or deny the existence of the car in the driveway, has nothing to do with whether the car exists in the driveway or not. Whether you confirm or deny the existence of God, has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. Although the former can easily be verified, but the latter can never be verified.

That is what I just said.

There is no evidence to falsify pixies, dragons, a flying tea pot, miracles, the power of prayer, Messengers, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, etc. Does this mean that the default position is that they all exist, until we can prove that they don't?

No, one should not take the default position that they exist if there is no evidence for their existence, but there is evidence that Messengers exist.

Does the lack of evidence now become the evidence for the belief. Just more convoluted logic and pseudo-sophistry.

No, the evidence is the evidence.

My statement was, "Oh, unless the woman is a corpse, then there is no "fool-proof" method for her to avoid getting pregnant DURING SEX". Now after reading my comments again, how is "abstinence" relevant? If you were abstaining, you wouldn't be having sex, right? Why would anyone practice birth control or safe sex, if they were abstaining from having sex? So do you now agree that there is no fool-proof method for not getting pregnant DURING SEX?

No, there is no method that is 100% effective, but there are four methods that are 99.5-99.9% effective. Why split hairs?
http://www.ashasexualhealth.org/pdfs/ContraceptiveOptions.pdf

Trailblazer said: Do you have any verifiable proof of that, scientific proof? It that was true, why are some people moral whereas others are immoral? Do you think we inherit morality from our parents? How then can we explain moral parents who have immoral children?

If you remember nothing, please remember that survival is the prime driving force in Nature. The second is the Mating drive. Anything that interferes with either, will eventually be deleted from the gene pool. Therefore, killing within a species would eventually be discouraged. Basic morality is the innate hard-wired behavioral instinct, that is represented by members of the species committing the least amount of harm and discomfort to others within the species. The principles of good or bad, right or wrong, only represent how these levels are expressed within the population. What is it that determines how our behavior is expressed? It is our genetic make-up and other environmental variables(nature v nurture). Where do we inherited our genes from? Our parents. I can provide more information regarding Molecular Genetics, and the relationship between protein synthesis and behavior. That is, if you are really interested in learning. Maybe, we can start with baby steps first?

What you said makes sense. I do not know much about genetics, but I know about nurture and I think that has a lot of bearing on morality. I am always interested in learning but I am pretty slow when it comes to science so it would have to be baby steps.

My question was simple. Do you believe God exists, or do you know that God exists? I'm not interested in any other of your distracting qualifiers(sure or think). If you think you know, or sure you know, or think you are sure you know, or even believe that you think that you are sure you know, then what evidence can you present that can support any of these positions? You remember, the same evidence that you demand others present to you.

To keep it simple, I know that God exists because I believe that God exists with absolute certitude. I have already told you what the evidence is for me, the Revelation of Bahaullah, but that will not be evidence for everyone, because everyone is not the same. There is individuality throughout nature, as you would know, being a scientist, and humans become further differentiated as we grow and learn throughout life, so why would everyone think alike about the evidence for God’s existence?

I guess that all that gibberish double-talking nonsense meant, is that you believe that God exists, because you really want to believe that God exists. And since there is no evidence to know that god doesn't exists, you will just keep believing that He does exist.

No, that is a straw man because:

• I do not really want to believe that God exists, and
• I have evidence that enables me to know that God exists

I'm not interested in your silly equivocation fallacies, or you trying to conflate an embryo with a human newborn. Clearly, you don't understand science as well. Since you don't believe that.

That is another straw man because I was not trying to conflate an embryo with a human newborn. I was only stating when life begins, and that is at the moment of conception, before there is even an embryo.

Governments should restrict the rights and freedoms of others, then why do you want to restrict the rights and freedoms of women who decide to terminate their pregnancy? I have no problems with your moral position in protecting the rights of a human embryo. I just feel that the rights given to all of us by our Constitution(9th and 14th Amendments), should not be threatened by the encroachment of narrowminded hypocritical one-dimensional views.

I never said anything about what governments should do. Baha’is are completely non-political so we do not take a position on politics.

I do not believe in the Constitution the way I believe in God and what He has revealed through Baha’u’llah about morality. All countries have their own governments and different laws. Do you think that the Constitution of the United States is superior to other countries?

If this is about human rights, I consider a life of the unborn child a human life. It matters not one iota whether that life is viable outside the womb or not. Life begins at the moment of conception so it is a potential life, a life that could have been, taken away by a woman who thinks she has that right. That life had no say in the matter, its rights were taken away.

What other rights and freedoms are you willing to sacrifice, to give credence to your perceived moral high ground? If you believe that all life should be protected, then why do you make exceptions for some, and not for others? Incest? Too bad. Rape? Too bad, her fault. Physical defects? Tough luck. Peer pressure and Naivety? Too bad, still your fault. Faulty condom or IUD? Too bad. Handicapped or mentally challenged mother? Sorry, the embryo's life is all that matters. Wow, I am not even religious, and I have infinitely more social compassion and empathy than you, apparently. Since there are no shades in your world, I guess you would see abortion, only as teens being selfish to avoid being inconvenienced. Right?

That is another straw man. I never said abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances. If you look at the laws in countries across the world, the legality of abortion depends upon the circumstances of the pregnancy. Only a few countries do not allow abortion under any circumstances. If the life of the mother is at stake, that is a legitimate circumstance to be considered. But the reasons why a girl or woman got pregnant are not a circumstance of the actual pregnancy This is not about whose fault it was, it is about one life vs. another. But as long as people do not consider an embryo a life, anything goes.

As far as I am concerned they should not have even been having sex unless they were married and if they were there would be no legitimate reason to have an abortion. Sex out of wedlock is probably the number one reason for abortions. 40% of babies are born out of wedlock in the United Sates so I can only imagine how many pregnancies were terminated out of wedlock.

As for rape and incest, the number of abortions performed is statistically insignificant, so that is just a red herring.
Rape and Incest: Just 1% of All Abortions

 

[Trailblazer]

Right. It is no different than believing in fairies in my mind. I cannot believe in something I find no evidence for except subjective stories people tell. That is not convincing. Coupled with what we actually do know about the physical universe, there leaves little room for this One God of yours.

Okay, that is what I thought; there is no evidence that is sufficient for you.
That is the general reason why atheists don’t believe in God.

I do not know why what we know about the physical universe would preclude the existence of God.

But you do not accept Christianity either. You insult them by telling them they got it all wrong. Then you insult non-abrahamics saying they got it wrong because there is only one God not many.

No, I do not insult any of those religious people simply because I have a different belief and I do not agree with their beliefs. To insult someone is to speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse. Show me where I did that.

The fact that I believe what I do means that I think they are wrong about certain (but not all) things that they believe. To say anything different would be dishonest, but I do not insult them, I simply disagree with them.

Atheists also disagree with believers but that does not mean they are insulting them.

Then you insult atheists by claiming they could believe but its too inconvenient for them or they haven't investigated your evidence hard enough or they plain old don't want to.

Show me where I ever said that. What I have said is that what I believe to be evidence is not considered evidence by atheists. I did not assign any blame to that. I said we are all different in how we view the same evidence.

You have said other religions are foolish for believing things they do, but you also believe as many unproven things as they do when it comes to God and prophets. So I'm not sure where you get to insult others but expect them to accept your versions of supernatural beings and events.

Show me where I called anyone foolish. I might have said I consider certain beliefs like dead people rising from graves or the body of Jesus floating up into the sky or coming down from the sky on a cloud are superstitious, because these beliefs go against science. I have a right to my opinion just like anyone else.

I certainly do not expect other religious believers to accept my religion. But they take it one step further when they moderate me on their forums just because I am a Baha’i. I do not moderate anyone on my forum, no matter what they believe or disbelieve. That is just an excuse for censorship.

I have yet to see a bahai "not say anything" when it comes to the beliefs of others. You have plenty to say and a lot of it is insulting whether you realize it or not. So you shouldn't be surprised when followers of other religions don't accept you with open arms.

To disagree is not insulting, not unless the disagreeing is done disrespectfully. Moreover, to agree with beliefs that you do not agree with is dishonest. Being insulted is not the reason followers of other religions don't accept the Baha’i Faith with open arms. They simply do not like a new religion, maybe because it is perceived as competition, but it is not our fault we are new, not anymore than it is the fault of a new kid whose family moved in down the block.

 

[ecco]

Yep.

And I just ran across a quote this morning that might explain why that happened.

“Be thankful to God <snip>

It doesn't.

 

[ecco]

Joseph Smith is highly respected by the Baha'i Faith, he is considered a seer.

Seers. Prophets. Messengers. How do you keep them all straight?

Who, in the Baha'i Faith considers Joseph Smith a seer? I suppose that means you also believe in the angel Moroni and the Golden Tablets?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I do not know what you are talking about. I did not post any Baha’i Writings in my post. What I quoted was from a research website: A Scientific View of When Life Begins

No, I was not comparing the red car that can be verified to the God who cannot be verified.

Comparing a physical anything, when evidence can easily be found to verify or falsify a claim of existence, can't be compared to anything such as God, where no evidence can be found to verify or falsify its existence.

That is what I just said.

No, one should not take the default position that they exist if there is no evidence for their existence, but there is evidence that Messengers exist.

No, the evidence is the evidence.


No, there is no method that is 100% effective, but there are four methods that are 99.5-99.9% effective. Why split hairs?
http://www.ashasexualhealth.org/pdfs/ContraceptiveOptions.pdf

What you said makes sense. I do not know much about genetics, but I know about nurture and I think that has a lot of bearing on morality. I am always interested in learning but I am pretty slow when it comes to science so it would have to be baby steps.

To keep it simple, I know that God exists because I believe that God exists with absolute certitude. I have already told you what the evidence is for me, the Revelation of Bahaullah, but that will not be evidence for everyone, because everyone is not the same. There is individuality throughout nature, as you would know, being a scientist, and humans become further differentiated as we grow and learn throughout life, so why would everyone think alike about the evidence for God’s existence?

No, that is a straw man because:

• I do not really want to believe that God exists, and
• I have evidence that enables me to know that God exists

That is another straw man because I was not trying to conflate an embryo with a human newborn. I was only stating when life begins, and that is at the moment of conception, before there is even an embryo.

I never said anything about what governments should do. Baha’is are completely non-political so we do not take a position on politics.

I do not believe in the Constitution the way I believe in God and what He has revealed through Baha’u’llah about morality. All countries have their own governments and different laws. Do you think that the Constitution of the United States is superior to other countries?

If this is about human rights, I consider a life of the unborn child a human life. It matters not one iota whether that life is viable outside the womb or not. Life begins at the moment of conception so it is a potential life, a life that could have been, taken away by a woman who thinks she has that right. That life had no say in the matter, it its rights taken away.

That is another straw man. I never said abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances. If you look at the laws in countries across the world, the legality of abortion depends upon the circumstances of the pregnancy. Only a few countries do not allow abortion under any circumstances. If the life of the mother is at stake, that is a legitimate circumstance to be considered. But the reasons why a girl or woman got pregnant are not a circumstance of the actual pregnancy This is not about whose fault it was, it is about one life vs. another. But as long as people do not consider an embryo a life, anything goes.

As far as I am concerned they should not have even been having sex unless they were married and if they were there would be no legitimate reason to have an abortion. Sex out of wedlock is probably the number one reason for abortions. 40% of babies are born out of wedlock in the United Sates so I can only imagine how many pregnancies were terminated out of wedlock.

As for rape and incest, the number of abortions performed is statistically insignificant, so that is just a red herring.
Rape and Incest: Just 1% of All Abortions

It is very frustrating to maintain an honest and rational discourse, with someone that is incapable of admitting when they are wrong. Even when the evidence of their own words are shown to them. It is also frustrating to ask very simple and direct questions, and receive denials, clever semantics, silly fallacies, half-truths, testimonials, rambling gibberish, and blatant ignorance. But most of all, changing of the context of the meaning of a word, to justify creating their own straw man, or accusing others of creating a straw man.

Is a car tangible? Is God intangible? If you were not comparing a belief in both their existence (or not existence), then what was the point you were trying to make regarding the consensus for belief? Next excuse. I stated that you have started quoting again from books of your Baha'i faith. You responded with, "I do not know what you are talking about. I did not post any Baha’i Writings in my post". Again, this can be so easily verified by looking at posts #367, #371, #372, and #385. Next excuse.

You stated that, "Practically everyone in the world believes that religion is the evidence that God exists. Only 7% of people in the world are atheists who for some reason cannot SEE the evidence that is staring them right in the face. They do not LIKE religion, but they have no logical reason not to like it. They think there should be objective evidence of an Entity called God, but God cannot be located on a GPS tracker. It is patently illogical to have such expectations of objective evidence. It is also illogical to think we could KNOW what God is doing in this world and use that as evidence that God exists"(straw man). These are all truth claims, without truth. People may believe in their religion, but their belief in their religion is not evidence that God exists. It is still just a belief. What is the evidence supporting your claim that Atheists can't see the evidence, or just don't like religion? Somebody just told you? It is certainly illogical to expect objective evidence to verify any mentally constructed fairy tale. But for everything outside of the mind, there IS an expectation for objective evidence. This avoids arguing from ignorance, or just begging the question.

The default position of our own existence, is that "we think, therefore we must exist". Did you know that when you are listening to your inner speech, the larynx is actually making muscular movements? Of course without any perception, the foetus would spontaneously be aborted. What is the default evidence that a messenger of a God must exists? Or, as you put it, "the evidence is the evidence". More nonsense. If there is no evidence that demonstrates the existence of God, then why do you make any claims of certainty that a God actually exists? Unless you simply just want to belief that God exists.

Do you believe that you can drive a car, or do you know you can drive a car? Do you believe that you are a female, or do you know you are a female? Belief claims require no evidence, but any claims of certainty do. So rather than keep obfuscating with these silly semantic games, simply admit that you clearly do not know, with any degree of certainty, that a God or Messenger of God exists. Surely your convincing evidence is not based on a faith that grew out of the Shi'ite branch of the Muslim faith, by a prisoner who proclaimed himself as the prophet the Báb had proclaimed. This story is as ridiculous as another story,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxa0nLcLu-0

I am not interested in your personal distain for the sexual practices of adolescents. I am not interested in your priggish and cold self-righteous moral rhetoric, parroted by someone that can only see their social reality in black and white. I am certainly not interested in views that ignore the fact that society just ain't perfect. My only interests is in the usurping the rights and freedoms of women. Especially, when it affects their right to make decisions relating to their own reproductive organs. This includes everything within their body as well. In Alabama, the right to an abortion is gone. No abortions, no exceptions. You should be celebrating how your narrow-minded views have destroyed the rights of others, forcing adolescence to now look after, seek alternative abortions, or put up for adoption a child that they may not want. This is religious elitism and intolerance at its finest, and the obvious and clear encroachment that rational people fear. You offer absolutely no PRACTICAL solutions to the abortion problem. You show no compassion, understanding, empathy, or any insight into the mind of those that must make this decision. You are simply just part of the problem. Just another sanctimonious moral aggressor, spreading guilt through condemnation. Yes, I do believe that the US Constitution is superior to the constitutions of other countries. Especially when their constitutions are so different to ours. Wonder what your religious views are on divorce?

 

[ecco]

You must have been a smart kid, as most kids do not realize how silly that is and so they go on to become full fledged Christians.

I learned long ago that intelligence bears little correlation to religious belief. More important is indoctrination. I was never indoctrinated. The forced Sunday School attendance was an attempt to "wash my mouth out with soap".

I have lots of friends on other forums who are EX-Christians but they were Christians until adulthood. I think it is really sad that so many people have turned away from God just because of Christianity.

All religions have their silly stories and beliefs. Silly stories like alleged first-hand accounts where there is no possibility that the account is first hand (Bahai). Silly beliefs like Golden Tablets (Mormon). Judaism has the whole OT with David and Goliath and the Exodus.

Baha'is do not interpret the Adam and Eve story like Christians do.
We believe the whole Adam and Eve story was an allegory: 30: ADAM AND EVE

Bahai's pick and choose just like all other religious people do. That's one reason why there are so many different religions and so many different sects within any one religion.

 

[ecco]

We believe the whole Adam and Eve story was an allegory: 30: ADAM AND EVE

From your link...
We must reflect a little: if the literal meaning of this story were attributed to a wise man, certainly all would logically deny that this arrangement, this invention, could have emanated from an intelligent being. Therefore, this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol.

So you believe Eden "must be thought of simply as a symbol". Do you feel that way about The Exodus? The Divinity of Jesus? The origins of the Universe?

 

[ecco]

Okay I understand that analogy... Some atheists have told me they do not want to believe in God maybe that is just because they think that goal is unattainable.
But it could also be that some atheists think that believing in God is more trouble than it's worth.

So some atheists told you they do not want to believe in God, but you never ascertained why. Instead, you just make up stories based on...what?

Psychologically, what happens when we realize we cannot have something we adjust and then we say we do not need it... Like my septic system which has been down for three months. I do not have time to figure out what is going on right now so I have no indoor plumbing. Good thing I have a shower at work and live on a secluded acre in the country.

Still making up stories about atheists.

So people get by without believing in God, and in this life they might not feel the repercussions, but those will be realized in the AFTERlife.

You have your baseless hopes. I (we) have my reality - everything dies. Death is final.

That is true, and if they had even bothered to do some research they would know that was a bad translation of the Qur'an. It meant raisins, not virgins, but not the kind of raisins we eat. Raisins is symbolic for something wonderful, not for a physical reality.

There are many interpretations. Just like you folks with Adam & Eve.

Again, it is all psychological. Those Muslims wanted to believe it was virgins that they would get, so they did not question if that made any sense or not.... It is the same with Christians who believe that their bodies will rise from the grave when Jesus returns and they will have a glorified body. They want a glorified body, so nothing I say is going to change their beliefs.

You do love to make up stories.

but as you said, they did not think it through... I mean the first thing we have to realize is just how long eternity is. That is why it is SO important to end up in the right location.

Funny. You say some people don't think through the various aspects of afterlife, but you accept your version of afterlife. Sadly, you don't even realize that the basis for your beliefs is no different than the basis for their beliefs.

You are right, they are all referring to the same God, but that is because there is only One God. They just do not realize it is the same God they are referring to.

Again, like people of all religions, you believe your interpretation is the one and only correct interpretation and people of different religions have it all wrong. Tell me again about how "they did not think it through".

The Abrahamic religions all describe God the same way and it is accurate.

Nonsense. Baptists, Mormons, Hebrews and Muslims do not "all describe God the same way ".

Where Christians went off track is believing Jesus was God.

Once again you are saying your beliefs are right, all other beliefs are wrong. The ego of religious people is indeed something to be in awe of.

The non-Abrahamic religions do not have an accurate conception of God and some believe there are many gods. They simply did not accept the update from God that came with Abraham.

Once again you are saying your beliefs are right, all other beliefs are wrong. The ego of religious people is indeed something to be in awe of.

It is realistic that eventually everyone will accept the latest update, because 55% of people in the world already believe there is One True God.

Yet you, yourself, just stated that Christians were wrong because they believe in the divinity of Jesus. So, clearly, 55% of people in the world DO NOT believe there is One True God.

The fact that there are more different religions than ever before attests to the fact that when there are more people there will be more different belief systems.

 

[ecco]

No, I don't believe in fairies. But you can't tell the difference. That is the problem here.

Do you seriously believe that Cupid is real but pixies are not? Do you seriously believe that Thor is real but fairies are not? Cupid, pixies, Thor, fairies are the creations of man's imaginings. Just as is your version of a supernatural entity.

If you stop and think about it really hard, it might come to you. What can "Ultimate Reality" possibly refer to? Clue. "The Ultimate truth about reality". Start looking there.

So I Googled "The Ultimate truth about reality".
Here is what came up...

The Two Truths of Buddhism and The Emptiness of Emptiness .
What Worldview Is Not | MarketFaith Ministries
Brave New Universe, by Paul Halpern and Paul Wesson | New Scientist
Test2 - Philosophy 1301 with Bottler at Austin Community College ...

We cannot know the ultimate truth about reality because we cannot experience the noumenal world.​

It looks like many different people have their own take on "the ultimate truth about reality". As such it cannot be an "ultimate truth". My search certainly didn't give me any insight into what you consider to be "the ultimate truth about reality".

I said I know longer self-identified with the term "atheist". That does not mean I don't relate to atheism. It is a part of who I am. Sort of like how I can still relate to 10 year olds, on that level, since I was 10, and being 10 is part of who I am today.

You were a 10-year-old, now you are not a ten year old. When you get stopped for speeding, will you tell the cop that you are 10 years old?

You were an atheist, now you are not an atheist. Don't suggest you are.

I don't think you're up to really discussing what I was talking about. That's ok. When you are we can talk then.

Yeah. It doesn't make much sense to discuss "The Ultimate truth about reality" with a 10-year-old.

 

[sooda]

Is atheism a religion? It depends on context and definitions. Most atheists bristle at the suggestion that atheism is a religious belief, and go to great lengths to distance themselves from the term.

δεισιδαιμονεστέρους is the Greek word for 'religious', as used by Paul in his Athenian speech:

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. Acts 17:22

The root of this word is 'fear of the gods'.

Another greek word that is translated 'religion' is θρῆσκος, which also carries a sense of 'fear' or 'trembling' toward deities.

So an atheist, who does not believe in God, and presumably has no 'fear' of deities, would not be 'religious' under this definition and usage.

But in modern usage, and especially in legal and constitutional matters, atheism is considered a religious belief. It is protected under the first amendment, and nobody can be denied freedom of conscience, for their 'religious' beliefs. The supreme court has ruled that atheism is protected, as a religious belief, under the first amendment.

There is a phony narrative that confuses this issue: 'Christians have Religion! Atheists have Science!' This is an attempt to move the atheistic opinion/belief about the nature of the universe into a false dichotomy.. a 'religion vs science!' dilemma. But atheism is not 'science!', anymore than a theistic belief. It is an opinion about the nature of the universe. It is a philosophical belief, and is not grounded in empirical science.

I have no problem defining atheism as a 'religious' belief, by the common usage of the term. It is a philosophical opinion, and 'religious' applies. It relates to a belief about deities, and is a valid opinion.

To deny the 'religious' nature of atheism would remove it from protected status, under the first amendment. Businesses, govts, or other human institutions could deny access, if one insists on a positive religious belief in a deity.

So, why is acknowledging the religious nature of atheism a problem, for many atheists? Is it not just another opinion about the nature of man, God, and the universe?

LOLOL.. Modern usage, my butt. You have to bend yourself into a pretzel to turn atheism into a religion.. Waste of time nonsense.