Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence

[Sgt. Pepper]

That is exactly what you are doing, playing games. You do that by twisting what I said and changing the meaning so you can try to prove your point.

The Bible is inconsistent but it does not demonstrate that itself since it is just a book.
People read it and interpret it and they can easily see that it is inconsistent.

The scripture is inconsistent. What I think has nothing to do with that.

So you bring out some 'other verses' to try to prove that the verses that I cited are not inconsistent, wonderful. But it won't work.
Of course there are some verses in the Bible that are consistent, but that does not change the fact that there are other verses that are inconsistent.

Paul says we are saved by faith alone, not by works.

Ephesians 2
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Jesus says we need works in order to be saved.

Matthew 25
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

But then, we have Jesus' parable about the sheep and goats, which clearly indicates that the sheep were rewarded with eternal life by Jesus for their works and the goats were condemned to eternal damnation by Jesus because they failed to do good deeds, such as feed the poor, take care of the sick, and visit prisoners. The popular theme of Christianity is "God loves you," but if you disobey him and sin against him, then he will send you to hell to be tortured, and you'll suffer for all eternity. However, if you repent of your sins and accept Jesus as your savior, then God will forgive you, and you're safe. But there's a catch. There is a loophole in this seemingly hopeful biblical promise: you could still be stripped of your salvation and be cast into hell if you don't follow God's will. Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31–46) and his clear warning: "Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21) demonstrate that even though you repented and were forgiven of your sins, you could still go to hell if you don't toe the line exactly the way God wants you to, and herein lies another conflicting message in the Bible, because Romans 10:9–13 says that if someone declares with their mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believes in their heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, they will be saved. The verse claims that whoever calls on Jesus' name will be saved, but his warnings of not doing God's will indicate otherwise.

And Ephesians 2:8–9 states, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast." However, in Matthew 7:21, Jesus stated, "Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father, who is in heaven," and his parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31–46 states the "sheep" were rewarded with eternal life for their good works of feeding the hungry, giving water to people who are thirsty, inviting in a stranger, clothing the needy, and visiting the sick or people in prison. However, the "goats" in this parable were lambasted by Jesus for not feeding the hungry, giving water to people who were thirsty, inviting in strangers, clothing the needy, and not visiting the sick or people in prison. Jesus cursed them and sent them to eternal damnation. The "goats" in the parable lacked the good works to be rewarded with eternal life, despite the fact that they were Christians who accepted Jesus as their lord and savior.

 

[Truthseeker]

2) The Quran fails where prophecy is concerned. If you know of any one prophesy that was accurately fulfilled, please say it.This is in contrast with the Bible, which contains scores of prophesies which were fulfilled in detail.

The Qur'an did little obvious prophecy. There is one prophecy I know of in the Qur'an in the beginning of the 30th surah.

The chapter begins by noting the recent defeat of the Byzantine Empire to the Sassanid Empire in Jerusalem, near the Dead Sea. This defeat posed a significant theological and sociological problem for the early Muslim community because the Byzantines were Christians (considered to be "People of the Book" from the Islamic viewpoint) while the Sassanids who defeated them were Zoroastrians. Ar-Rum is in part a response to the non-Muslim Arab Meccans, who took the Sassanid victory as a sign that the traditional polytheistic practices would win out over the monotheism of the Abrahamic religions.[2] In the third and fourth verses, the Muslim community is promised that the Byzantines will reverse their defeat into a victory and retake Jerusalem "in a few years' time".[3]

"The Romans were vanquished in the closer region, and they, after being vanquished, will prevail within a certain number of years. To God belongs the command before and after. And that day, ones who believe will be glad with the help of God. He helps whom He wills. And He is The Almighty, The Compassionate."[Quran 30:2–5 (Translated by Laleh Bakhtiar)]

Muslims believe this prophecy was fulfilled with Heraclius' campaign of 622, a Byzantine military counter-offensive that resulted in a crushing defeat for the Sassanids in Anatolia, and cite it as an example of the miraculous nature of the Quran

Ar-Rum - Wikipedia

As in the Bible verses, whether this is a valid fulfilled prophecy is in the eye of the beholder, but I believe it is.

Most prophecies in Islam are in Hadiths, oral sayings recorded later by scholars by Muhammad, or for the Shi'i Muslims also the Imams that succeeded Muhammad. As these were oral remembrances, these were given different weight according to what was supposedly the link of transmittal.

 

[Trailblazer]

"Prove" still? I made my argument, which I found compelling. You had no rebuttal. That's the end of that sub-debate. I hope that I don't need to remind you again that debate ends with the last plausible, unrebutted claim or argument. That's how we know that we are done and have arrived at a sound conclusion.

Then the debate is resolved.

No, it is not resolved because I have a rebuttal.

You said:
Mankind doesn't need religion. Individuals raised in it have become dependent on it, but if we stopped dropping Bibles into playpens and let children mature outside of its influence, they would have no more use for it than somebody who has had time to assimilate and has accepted that his life and consciousness may be finite and the universe may be godless. If one is good with those two, and has matured morally outside of the belief that he was being continually watched and judged with eventual prizes for the winners and a fillip to the ear for the losers just like mommy and daddy, and were free to instead develop one's conscience to be a reliable guide to thought and behavior, then religions have nothing to offer him. #523

Religion is needed to bring man closer to God and to change that man’s character, a transformation that manifests itself both outwardly and inwardly, and affects both the inner life and external conditions of man. Religion is also needed to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men.

Religion is the chief instrument for the establishment of order in the world. Religion also provides the teachings and unifying power by which entire societies can achieve order and stability. The Word of God that, alone, can achieve this. Laws and institutional systems are created that bind people together in ever larger and more complex societies.

The indispensability of religion to social order has repeatedly been demonstrated by its direct effect on laws and morality.
The divine teachings of religion are above all other sources of instruction and development to man. Religion guides man's footsteps in the world of morality. It has been the basis of all civilization and progress in the history of mankind.

Religion is needed to know God and that leads to loving God which confers eternal life upon the soul.

 

[muhammad_isa]

From scientific American;

10 Solutions for Climate Change

Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change

www.scientificamerican.com

Can you explain which of the proposed solutions are "vague".

..so why has the issue of climate change not been solved?
Are you saying that these recommendations are not being employed?
If not, why not?

I'll tell you .. because the richer nations want to keep their priviliges, quite naturally..
..that's why.
..and they are quite willing to do that by the manipulation of money.

Condemnation of usury is an idea invented by humans according to my understanding;

'Among the oldest known references to usury are to be found in ancient Indian religious manuscripts and Jain (1929) provides an excellent summary of these in his work on Indigenous Banking in India. The earliest such record derives from the Vedic texts of Ancient India (2,000-1,400 BC) in which the “usurer” (kusidin) is mentioned several times and interpreted as any lender at interest. More frequent and detailed references to interest payment are to be found in the later Sutra texts (700-100 BC), as well as the Buddhist Jatakas (600-400 BC). It is during this latter period that the first sentiments of contempt for usury are exressed. For example, Vasishtha, a well known Hindu law-maker of that time, made a special law which forbade the higher castes of Brahmanas (priests) and Kshatriyas (warriors) from being usurers or lenders at interest. Also, in the Jatakas, usury is referred to in a demeaning manner: “hypocritical ascetics are accused of practising it”.'

Source: History of Usury Prohibition

You will note that all of these precede Muhammad.

In my opinion

You are merely deflecting form the issue.
We know that the Qur'an states clearly that usury is not acceptable.
Your historical theories are irrelevant.

We are not arguing about other sources.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well nature tends to be self correcting, so it will likely cut down the human population size by a significant amount, but there are likely to be areas where humans survive and learn if I understand correctly.

Agreed. The global warming threat is not one expected to result in human extinction, but we should expect to see a major reordering of society. You might find this interesting, the effect the decimation of the European population the black plague had, and how it led to some changed for the better. Covid did something similar on a smaller scale when it led toa revolution of sorts among workers, who just wouldn't go back to their feudalistic jobs. From Effects of the Black Death on Europe :

"As the plague wore on, however, depopulation greatly reduced the workforce and the serf's labor suddenly became an important – and increasingly rare – asset. The lord of an estate could not feed himself, his family, or pay tithes to the king or the Church without the labor of his peasants and the loss of so many meant that survivors could now negotiate for pay and better treatment. The lives of the members of the lowest class vastly improved as they were able to afford better living conditions and clothing as well as luxury items. Once the plague had passed, the improved lot of the serf was challenged by the upper class who were concerned that the lower classes were forgetting their place. Fashion changed dramatically as the elite demanded more extravagant clothing and accessories to distance themselves from the poor who could now afford to dress more finely than in their previous rags and blankets. Efforts of the wealthy to return the serf to his previous condition resulted in uprisings such as the peasant revolt in France in 1358, the guild revolts of 1378, the famous Peasants' Revolt of London in 1381. There was no turning back, however, and the efforts of the elite were futile. Class struggle would continue but the authority of the feudal system was broken."

Good luck on 'finding God' with your GPS tracker. Nothing could be more absurd.

You also won't find Santa on Christmas eve with GPS for the same reason. You seem to think that the invisibility and undetectability of that god is irrelevant, or even supports belief.

I meant that the souls of man are destroyed by materialism, because worldly people lose their souls.

And what do you mean by materialism - the definition related to excess greed or the one synonymous with physicalism or naturalism? I'm pretty sure that I'm what you'd call worldly simply because I reject faith and religion, and have enjoyed and continue to be involved in and enjoy the pleasures of the world. The religious think they have something important to offer without which life is worse, but the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

Religion is needed to bring man closer to God

There is no value in trying to find gods. One cannot become nearer to a god. He can only become more fervent in his belief and more orthodox in his behavior, but what benefit is there in that?

and to change that man’s character

Religion is not necessary for generating decent, moral people.

Religion is also needed to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men.

We do that without religion as well.

Religion is the chief instrument for the establishment of order in the world.

This is obviously false. Secular governments do that to the extent that it is done.

Religion also provides the teachings and unifying power by which entire societies can achieve order and stability.

But is not needed for that.

The indispensability of religion to social order has repeatedly been demonstrated by its direct effect on laws and morality.

This an empty claim. Religion has NEVER been demonstrated to be indispensable.

I thought that you were arguing for why religion is necessary to mankind. None of these thigs is the exclusive purview of religion, and religion doesn't do very well at them either. Also, you called this cut-and-paste response a rebuttal (you really ought to give attribution when you do that), but you never addressed my argument. You just gave an opinion that falsifies none of my argument for why mankind does not need religion.

We've had about 40 years to do it, and yet we have not yet succeeded.
Is that because we are not all humanists?

If we all held humanist values, the problem would already have been successfully addressed. Humanism is about enabling and empowering people using reason, and places human well-being over corporate profits.

We know what to do, but man will not be able to do it before things become much worse and it is forced to. When the human race has suffered enough and the herd has been sufficiently culled, then it will listen to its sages. Think black plague, and how its decimation of the European population had an effect like the asteroids that wiped out the dinosaurs, opening up a slew of niches to those kept back by the established order at the time.

It will not succeed

I know. Man will not be able to prevent disaster from either climate or AI, and for the same reason - stupid and immoral people. Isn't that clear yet? It's like Lord of the Flies. The intellectuals will continue to be ignored, attacked and suppressed by the yahoos. They "win," and humanity loses. Do you have grandchildren? I don't.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I know. Man will not be able to prevent disaster from either climate or AI, and for the same reason - stupid and immoral people. Isn't that clear yet?

Very clear.
..yet not one of us is pure.

It would help, however, if we were focused on the underlying cause, rather
than man-made solutions. i.e. the financial system

 

[nPeace]

That is exactly what you are doing, playing games. You do that by twisting what I said and changing the meaning so you can try to prove your point.

The Bible is inconsistent but it does not demonstrate that itself since it is just a book.
People read it and interpret it and they can easily see that it is inconsistent.

The scripture is inconsistent. What I think has nothing to do with that.

So you bring out some 'other verses' to try to prove that the verses that I cited are not inconsistent, wonderful. But it won't work.

Of course there are some verses in the Bible that are consistent, but that does not change the fact that there are other verses that are inconsistent.

The following verses are inconsistent with each other.

Paul says we are saved by faith alone, not by works.

Ephesians 2
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Jesus says we need works in order to be saved.

Matthew 25
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Repeating yourself does not help your case.

 

[nPeace]

The Qur'an did little obvious prophecy. There is one prophecy I know of in the Qur'an in the beginning of the 30th surah.

The chapter begins by noting the recent defeat of the Byzantine Empire to the Sassanid Empire in Jerusalem, near the Dead Sea. This defeat posed a significant theological and sociological problem for the early Muslim community because the Byzantines were Christians (considered to be "People of the Book" from the Islamic viewpoint) while the Sassanids who defeated them were Zoroastrians. Ar-Rum is in part a response to the non-Muslim Arab Meccans, who took the Sassanid victory as a sign that the traditional polytheistic practices would win out over the monotheism of the Abrahamic religions.[2] In the third and fourth verses, the Muslim community is promised that the Byzantines will reverse their defeat into a victory and retake Jerusalem "in a few years' time".[3]


Muslims believe this prophecy was fulfilled with Heraclius' campaign of 622, a Byzantine military counter-offensive that resulted in a crushing defeat for the Sassanids in Anatolia, and cite it as an example of the miraculous nature of the Quran

Ar-Rum - Wikipedia

As in the Bible verses, whether this is a valid fulfilled prophecy is in the eye of the beholder, but I believe it is.

Most prophecies in Islam are in Hadiths, oral sayings recorded later by scholars by Muhammad, or for the Shi'i Muslims also the Imams that succeeded Muhammad. As these were oral remembrances, these were given different weight according to what was supposedly the link of transmittal.

Thank you.
Did you mean Sura 30:1-3?
Alif. Lam. Mim. The Romans have been defeated in the neighbouring land; but after their defeat they shall gain victory in a few years.

Didn't the Romans win? Would that not mean the prophecy failed?

 

[Trailblazer]

Repeating yourself does not help your case.

My case doesn't need any help. Everyone knows there are inconsistencies in the Bible.

 

[loverofhumanity]

How can you say their goodness is due to religion and not just them being naturally good? There are bad theists and good atheists, so that is a fly in your ointment.

It's plenty deniable. What IS undeniable is the lack of evidence to religious claims.

That is a dubious claim. It's likely human civilizations would have progressed well if religions weren't invented.

Like the 9-11 hijackers who obeyed God's will to such a degree they were willing to die. That's impressive obedience, don't you think?

The problem is ignorance of what religion teaches. The Prophets of God all taught love, mercy, compassion and the virtues and to be kind and not to harm or kill one another. So anyone obeying these teachings it is impossible to become evil or a terrorist. It is disobedience to the laws of the Prophets which caused the world wars seeing millions dead. All the religions did in fact advance their societies at the time they appeared but none of them were meant to last forever. All life comes from the sun. A person may light a candle and say the light is from him but in truth and reality were there no sun his candle nor the means to light it could exist. So too without the appearance and teachings of the Prophets of God, man could never have become civilised whether he admits it or not.

 

[nPeace]

My case doesn't need any help. Everyone knows there are inconsistencies in the Bible.

No. Not everyone.
That's a false statement, and an Argumentum ad Populum fallacy.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The problem is ignorance of what religion teaches. The Prophets of God all taught love, mercy, compassion and the virtues and to be kind and not to harm or kill one another.

The religions I'm familiar with don't teach those things. Saying "Go love each other" isn't teaching, and it obviously hasn't been an answer

It is disobedience to the laws of the Prophets which caused the world wars seeing millions dead.

Thise prophets had no insights or original ideas worth remembering. Abrahamic religions don't do a thing to prevent wars, but they have been the cause of some. It's time to look elsewhere. If only there were a worldview with proven track results, one that issued in modernity and elevated the human condition. Those religions don't do that. They just pretend they can, and blame humanity for the religion's failures.

The Golden Rule is all one needs, and enough character to embrace and live it. Religion doesn't provide that either. Here's all the advice one needs. This is humanism - empiricism and utilitarian ethics:

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." - Buddha

And here is the only moral advice one needs:

"Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you." - Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat(c. 2040-1650 BCE)

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." - Thales (c. 624 BC - c. 546 BCE)

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." - Lao Tzu (604-531 BCE)

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." - Confucius (c. 551-479 BCE)

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." - Siddhartha Gautama,(c. 563-483 BCE)

"One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one's own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires." - The Hindu Mahabharata [book] circa 400 BCE​

.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

My case doesn't need any help. Everyone knows there are inconsistencies in the Bible.

Yes, the Bible has a lot of contradictions, but Christians are unlikely to admit it. It's also common for Christians to read the Bible through rose-colored glasses and miss these inconsistencies. In my case, I had to separate myself from my Christian faith before I could see these inconsistencies for myself.

 

[metis]

Yes, the Bible has a lot of contradictions, but Christians are unlikely to admit it. It's also common for Christians to read the Bible through rose-colored glasses and miss these inconsistencies. In my case, I had to separate myself from my Christian faith before I could see these inconsistencies for myself.

This was pushed with the Fundamentalist Movement back in the 1800's as a response to Modernism, whereas the denominations prior to that didn't buy into the concept of full inerrancy. Even the early Church made no such claim.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The religions I'm familiar with don't teach those things. Saying "Go love each other" isn't teaching, and it obviously hasn't been an answer

Thise prophets had no insights or original ideas worth remembering. Abrahamic religions don't do a thing to prevent wars, but they have been the cause of some. It's time to look elsewhere. If only there were a worldview with proven track results, one that issued in modernity and elevated the human condition. Those religions don't do that. They just pretend they can, and blame humanity for the religion's failures.

The Golden Rule is all one needs, and enough character to embrace and live it. Religion doesn't provide that either. Here's all the advice one needs. This is humanism - empiricism and utilitarian ethics:

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." - Buddha

And here is the only moral advice one needs:

"Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you." - Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat(c. 2040-1650 BCE)​

​

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." - Thales (c. 624 BC - c. 546 BCE)​

​

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." - Lao Tzu (604-531 BCE)​

​

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." - Confucius (c. 551-479 BCE)​

​

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." - Siddhartha Gautama,(c. 563-483 BCE)​

​

"One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one's own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires." - The Hindu Mahabharata [book] circa 400 BCE​

.

It’s interesting you quote Buddha as I believe in Buddha also and that without great Teachers like Him we would not be as knowledgeable. I believe Buddha was the Founder of Buddhism and taught the oneness of God. Buddhism is recognised as a religion. You are only confirming that true knowledge comes to humanity through These Teachers. While you accept Buddha you do not quote Christ Who said to ‘love one another’. Just because you do not believe in a God should not allow that to cloud your judgement to give credit where it is due. And Christ and Baha’u’llah and other Prophets like Zoroaster have said ‘Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds’ and ‘In the garden of thy heart plant naught but the rose of love’. So these don’t count in your mind because a God is attached? I believe that is unfair to just cling to one’s own bias despite other equally valid truths that come from God and religion. Give credit where it’s due. All your quotes are great. I try and accept truth no matter who speaks it. The Maharbarata contains the Bhagavad Gita which professes belief in God and Krishna. So some of your quotes are taken from religions and from Books which teach about God.

But please try and be fair. There’s a lot of good taught by religion. Each age has its own religion. None of the current religions were meant for the current age but Baha’u’llah brought a religion for this age teaching the oneness of all humanity, the unity of nations and world governance. When religion is relative and meets the needs of the age, it is useful to humanity.

 

[F1fan]

The problem is ignorance of what religion teaches.

Be aware you are talking about religious belivers here, not atheists. If there was an actual God, and it uses books and prophets to communicate, it has been a dismal failure. If a God exists it certainly bahaves as it is an ordinary human of average intelligence. You can blame humans for getting messages wrong. Well wouldn't a God know that and communicate with highly intelligent people whose thinking skills are the most developed?

I agree with you in essence, for example I agure against Chrisatians who interpret the Jesus myth literally. The myth is absurd, as it is the third major fix God attempted since it created the universe. Heaven and hell don't make any sense literally. But all these concepts can be a workable, practical, and beneficial system of belief is it was all interpreted symbolically, and none of it assumed to be literal. Religious dogmas are flawed by demanding assumption of a supernatural. None of that can be reconciled by a rational mind. No religious belief can make any sense , including Baha'i.

The Prophets of God all taught love, mercy, compassion and the virtues and to be kind and not to harm or kill one another. So anyone obeying these teachings it is impossible to become evil or a terrorist.

Yet God created humans who were not emotionally and mentally able to obey. And remember, there's no actual God coming forth as an authority over humans. We are on our own. Are you willing to follow your religious leader? If so then you take a step towards being used for criminal acts. If you believe you need a guru, you are guilible.

It is disobedience to the laws of the Prophets which caused the world wars seeing millions dead. All the religions did in fact advance their societies at the time they appeared but none of them were meant to last forever. All life comes from the sun. A person may light a candle and say the light is from him but in truth and reality were there no sun his candle nor the means to light it could exist. So too without the appearance and teachings of the Prophets of God, man could never have become civilised whether he admits it or not.

And yet despite dozens of active religions in the world there is still division and crime against others. Religions have had the chance for millennia to solve the problems humans create and it hasn't worked. You don't seem to realize this. Remember what you wrote at the top of your post: "The problem is ignorance of what religion teaches." I argue it is you who is ignorant of what religion teaches, it teaches dogma, narrow mindedness, shallowness, and tribalism. It closes the mind in a box and limits freedom of thought. This is what fearful minds seek.

 

[F1fan]

It’s interesting you quote Buddha as I believe in Buddha also and that without great Teachers like Him we would not be as knowledgeable.

What do you mean "believe in"?

I believe Buddha was the Founder of Buddhism and taught the oneness of God.

Siddartha's teachings were absent of remarks about any gods. And be aware that he was raised in the Hindu tradition which is polytheistic. So your claim is inaccurate.

Buddhism is recognised as a religion.

It is, but it is more of a set of practices that help humans manage their fears and minds. There is doctrine, but no set rules as is typical of religions. There is an emphasis on ethics and right acion, and this puts the authority on the person to determine their own moral sense.

You are only confirming that true knowledge comes to humanity through These Teachers. While you accept Buddha you do not quote Christ Who said to ‘love one another’.

"Other teachers" seem to be more celebrity than practical. Does Jesus offer any more wisdom that the average Humanist? No. There is a religious myth built around him that serves religious purposes, some violent, cruel, and deadly. There has been a lot of people killing in the name of God.

Just because you do not believe in a God should not allow that to cloud your judgement to give credit where it is due.

Hahahaha. Oh boy, sell, sell, sell God. There's never a let up in selling God as if it is known to be a real phenomenon.

And Christ and Baha’u’llah and other Prophets like Zoroaster have said ‘Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds’ and ‘In the garden of thy heart plant naught but the rose of love’. So these don’t count in your mind because a God is attached? I believe that is unfair to just cling to one’s own bias despite other equally valid truths that come from God and religion. Give credit where it’s due. All your quotes are great. I try and accept truth no matter who speaks it. The Maharbarata contains the Bhagavad Gita which professes belief in God and Krishna. So some of your quotes are taken from religions and from Books which teach about God.

This is more sales pitch, no factual or true claims. This is an example of why I see Baha'i as a cult.

But please try and be fair. There’s a lot of good taught by religion. Each age has its own religion. None of the current religions were meant for the current age but Baha’u’llah brought a religion for this age teaching the oneness of all humanity, the unity of nations and world governance. When religion is relative and meets the needs of the age, it is useful to humanity.

Religions offer nothing special that can't be taught by humanists. Religions are manipulative and deceptive because they cite Gods. It's a serious defect.

 

[osgart]

Everyone is unique. Not everyone is going to embrace all encompassing standards and definitions of love. I mean we are all individuals.

What is love? What do these prophets say love is?

Love is a general term. It means to care or to set one's affections upon. That's not easy to apply universally to everybody. I can only love in knowledge and/or having true relationship with someone. Caring about those who hate you is the hardest thing one can do. I'm not so sure it's even possible or healthy to do. Civil tolerance may be the best one can do there. Mercy and forgiveness might be a type of love but no one has taught how to apply such things, nor exactly what they mean and entail.

A lot of nice words get thrown around, but there is no science of mercy, and love that tells us how to apply those meanings. It's just sentiment and words in these holy books. There's no clear definition, meaning, and application conveyed, nor any demonstration of how they work.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It’s interesting you quote Buddha as I believe in Buddha also and that without great Teachers like Him we would not be as knowledgeable.

I quoted Buddha and many other ancients to illustrate that the Golden Rule doesn't come from any god and we don't need religion to recognize its value. That's where this began - with the claim that religion is essential to mankind. And we don't need anybody from the past to teach us the value of reciprocity and kindness.

I believe Buddha was the Founder of Buddhism and taught the oneness of God.

Buddha warned against theistic speculation, and Buddhism has an atheistic form.

You are only confirming that true knowledge comes to humanity through These Teachers.

Disagree. They aren't where I learned these things. My worldview is entirely the result of applying reason to evidence and conscience. I began that process in earnest after leaving Christianity. It was years later that I came upon the eight-fold path and recognized it as beliefs I had developed. I guess I was part Buddhist before I realized it. It was also later that I encountered the Affirmations of Humanism, and had the same reaction: 'Well lookie there. I guess these ideas are called humanism. I must be one of them too.' You can rest assured that I never learned what humanism was as Christian apart from some evil from Satan.

While you accept Buddha you do not quote Christ Who said to ‘love one another’.

Christ was a Johnny-come-lately. Did you see the dates of those who formulated the Golden Rule before him? And that's my point. Many would give credit to Christ for that as you just tried to do, and include it in an argument for why we need religion. Is there no good idea that that religion doesn't try to steal for itself? Besides morality, Christianity also wants credit for science, and for America's Constitution.

There’s a lot of good taught by religion.

Not to my knowledge, but even so, so what? Is that an argument for religion? What does a god belief add to anything? Religion does nothing worth doing that isn't done as well or better without it, and Abrahamic religions teach a lot of harmful ideas. Yours, like the others, teaches that homosexuals are unnatural and in conflict with a good god, which is unfair, unkind, divisive, and destructive. And what is your religion teaching you? That other religions are wrong, which message has been alienating others on RF for some time. Also, that it has the answer to world unity. It doesn't. It's just a distraction from better ideas on what our goals ought to be and how to achieve them.

When religion is relative and meets the needs of the age, it is useful to humanity.

And when did that last happen? Do you think that describes your religion? I'll bet you do.

 

[danieldemol]

..so why has the issue of climate change not been solved?
Are you saying that these recommendations are not being employed?
If not, why not?

Well solutions can be clear and still difficult to implement in my view.

You are merely deflecting form the issue.
We know that the Qur'an states clearly that usury is not acceptable.
Your historical theories are irrelevant.

We are not arguing about other sources.

But we are in my view because you claim that only God can save us. If men thought of an idea before God did then the credit for the idea goes to men with whom it originated - not to your copy cat God who usurped a man-made solution and claimed it for God's self.

In my opinion.