Watch National Geographic

[visaveteran 1]

Mox, I wonder how you feel about people who call themselves "spiritual, but not religious?" People who use rituals and ceremonies to honor the earth or the Tao or the cosmos...maybe what some call Gaia.

I do think that atheists lack one thing (at least) which is honoring something transcendent to themselves. And serving something beyond themselves.

[LvivLovers 39]

I've been trying to avoid getting into a full-blown religious discussion, because frankly, it's never-ending and it's not likely to change anyone's beliefs. But some of the stuff you say is just misinformed and too simplistic!

I've actually been very careful to avoid saying "religious people are bad" because it's too much of a generalization (yes, even for me ). I'm talking about the religious organizations. The Catholic Church is bad, even if Mother Theresa was good. The Mormon Church is bad, even if my Mormon ex-roommate was a really nice guy and wouldn't hurt a fly. Islam is bad, even if Azar Nafisi helped women in Iran learn more than just religious dogma. We can point to any religion and see that there are many good people who consider themselves a part of that religion. The reason that the whole of religion is bad, however, is:

The Catholic church is NOT bad. Neither are other religions. It's open to the same problems that any organization of any size that involves people is going to have. Mistakes will be made. People will do and say dumb things. There will even be bad people from time to time, even in leadership positions. That doesn't make a religion inherintly bad. That's like saying all governments are bad. Even though governments are frequently (even almost all of the time) run by idiots, I still wouldn't argue that they are bad and I wouldn't want to live in a world with no government.

- Religion enforces conformance to a non-changing set of core beliefs. No matter what science shows, if you are a Christian or a Jew then you must believe that the world was created in 6 days, that it is only 6,000 years old, and that there was a flood that covered the earth and destroyed everybody except a handful of people. Certainly you're free to choose what parts you want to believe in, but what gives you the right? In Peter, Jesus says that none of the scriptures are open to personal interpretation. Christians who reject the Old Testament because it tells them to stone their children (Jesus also says disobedient children must die in Mark, btw) or get a good price on their slaves are also rejecting the New Testament. People who try to interpret their chosen religion on their own are woefully out of their depth. You could go crazy trying to wrap your mind around all of the dogma in Christianity alone, let alone trying to come up with your own version. It's dogma that makes religion so dangerous. In fact, just by trying to interpret Christianity on your own, you're leaving yourself open to being killed as a non-believer, as God commands in the bible.

The whole thing about rigidity of beliefs is just plain wrong. And it's not all or nothing...that you must either believe it all or you are not really a Christian or a Jew...if that were the case, we'd probably have almost no Christians or Jews. Speaking of interpretation...you're certainly interpreting things yourself. Most religious people would most likely have a completely different understanding than you do. For example, on interpretation itself see: http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-2-peter-1-20(3).htm As to being forced to hold OT laws or you are rejecting NT...what?! There's a lot of writing on the subject of OT not being applicable any more. For example: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_law_hays.html But basically, Hebrews 8:13 talks about establishing a new covenant and doing away with the old one from the OT.

- It is far too easy to convince good people to do bad things. And it doesn't even have to be war. Consider Catholicism's stance on birth control. Because of the Catholic Church's unyielding stance on birth control, AIDS is ravaging hundreds of thousands world wide. STD's run rampant in South America and Mexico for the same reason.

You don't need religion for that and it usually doesn't take a lot of convincing.

- Anything can be forgiven or justified in the name of religion. All you need to do is convince enough people that "God said so."

Just BS.

Anyway, as a suggestion, stick to athiesm and talk about whatever they believe or don't believe. But please, stop trying to say what other Religions which you don't hold to believe, because almost everything you say about them is incorrect! You know just enough to try to twist things towards your point of view, but you don't really know enough details. Just like the stuff you complained about on the History channel, you're trying to present your beliefs as fact. Well what if someone believes that?!

If you want to talk about how great athiesm is, then great. But please stop putting down other relgions as silly, stupid, etc. If you're secure and happy with being an athiest, then more power to you, but why the need to attack others that don't believe the same as you? Why is it that I always see athiests doing this? I don't see religious people coming on here and throwing in little digs at athiesm in every post!

[mox 298]

Speaking of interpretation...you're certainly interpreting things yourself.

But I'm not!! I'm not interpreting anything. I'm taking directly from, in this case, The Bible. It is, in fact, Christian apologists who are interpreting a version of Christianity that makes them feel better about what kind of a god they're worshiping. If they stopped interpreting and actually read their bible, they'd see that the god they worship is a pretty vile and disgusting fellow. Even Jesus wasn't the lamb that he's portrayed as.

Most religious people would most likely have a completely different understanding than you do. For example, on interpretation itself see: http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-2-peter-1-20(3).htm As to being forced to hold OT laws or you are rejecting NT...what?! There's a lot of writing on the subject of OT not being applicable any more. For example: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_law_hays.html But basically, Hebrews 8:13 talks about establishing a new covenant and doing away with the old one from the OT.

See, this is just a bunch of apologist justification. If you're on a diet, it's like saying Friday afternoon calories don't count. People are uncomfortable with what the bible teaches, and so they try to pick and choose what's convenient for them. Why don't you ever see any Sunday service sermons on Leviticus or Deuteronomy? Because people would walk out of the pews if a preacher stood up there and told parents to stone their misbehaving children or to rape their enemy's women. Christians justify denying homosexuals the right to marry based on the Old Testament, but conveniently gloss over the fact that Jesus teaches us to beat our disobedient slaves. (Luke 12:47-48)

Anyway, you linked an opinion piece. Anyone can have an opinion. I'm going to go straight to the source. Here's what Jesus had to say about the relevance of the Old Testament. I used this online version of the KJB.

Matthew 5

[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

[19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 15

[4] For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. (which is exactly as the Old Testament commands)

Luke 16

[16] The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

[17] And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one title of the law to fail.

[18] Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. (VERY Old Testament!)

2 Timothy 3

[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Peter 1

[20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

John 10

[35] If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken

Some of these passages are stronger proof than others, but in totality they add up to one thing: The OT is relevant, and Jesus commands you to uphold them. And this is exactly the reason that Christians kill doctors and young white men blow up Federal buildings.

Anyway, as a suggestion, stick to athiesm and talk about whatever they believe or don't believe. But please, stop trying to say what other Religions which you don't hold to believe, because almost everything you say about them is incorrect! You know just enough to try to twist things towards your point of view, but you don't really know enough details. Just like the stuff you complained about on the History channel, you're trying to present your beliefs as fact. Well what if someone believes that?!

The reason I know so much about Christianity and how Christians twist their own faith (seriously, it doesn't take an atheist to do it) is because I used to be one. Born again and everything. But I'm doing as you asked, I'm talking about what Atheists believe. But I can't just say "Atheists believe that religion is bad," because inevitably somebody is going to say "prove it." Somebody did ask just such a thing, and I'm putting my money where my mouth is.

If you want to talk about how great athiesm is, then great. But please stop putting down other relgions as silly, stupid, etc. If you're secure and happy with being an athiest, then more power to you, but why the need to attack others that don't believe the same as you? Why is it that I always see athiests doing this? I don't see religious people coming on here and throwing in little digs at athiesm in every post!

Well, as I understand it, this is a public forum and the limitations on what we talk about are pretty wide. I have absolutely no problem with a religious person coming here and "throwing in little digs at athiesm." I think I've been pretty fair, and have backed up every allegation I've made with sources and links. Everything I've said is factually correct. Yes, I may have thrown in the occasional adjective like "silly" or "ridiculous," but I've added far more factually than personal opinion. I've also made sure to keep my remarks confined within this topic only, and on-topic for the discussion at hand. I've also been polite and respectful to the participants within this thread, even if I happen to disagree with a belief system. So I appreciate that you don't like what I have to say, but I've been really careful to say it in the most respectful way possible. Considering that there are some countries that would cut my head off for saying these things, I think I'm being pretty dang reasonable.

[mox 298]

Mox, I wonder how you feel about people who call themselves "spiritual, but not religious?" People who use rituals and ceremonies to honor the earth or the Tao or the cosmos...maybe what some call Gaia.

It depends on what you mean by spiritual. I know people that say "I don't believe in any religion, but I believe there's a God out there yadda yadda yadda..." and I just have to think they're deluding themselves. It's a comfort to think that somehow there's a plan to it all and that we have somewhere to go when we die, but it's a fantasy. And I often find that when I dig deeper into these spiritual peoples' lives, they're really just re-writing the bits of the Christian mythology that they like in their own heads. Or they're spiritualists in the sense of druids or wicca, and quite frankly those people just creep me out.

On the other hand, there are spiritual people who share my own belief system. These are people who find, for example, meditation to be deeply gratifying. I myself have tried meditation, but I must be doing it wrong. I find video games more relaxing.

I do think that atheists lack one thing (at least) which is honoring something transcendent to themselves. And serving something beyond themselves.

Then you really don't understand atheism. Carl Sagan was an atheist, but he served something much greater than himself. He served humanity through his constant search to understand our universe. Something like 95% of members of the National Acadamy of Sciences are atheists, and you can bet that they're not biologists and astronomers and teachers for their own self gratification. In fact, many (most?) atheists feel as I do about religion, and believe mankind would be better off and would become more moral and more socially responsible than the current religious state of affairs. Atheism is quintessentially about serving something beyond ourselves.

[Brad and Vika 129]

Atheism is quintessentially about serving something beyond ourselves.

I wouldn't claim to know much about atheism, but this statement doesn't seem to jibe at all with most of what I read over the years.

[mox 298]

I wouldn't claim to know much about atheism, but this statement doesn't seem to jibe at all with most of what I read over the years.

But Brad, you need to read more than just Penthouse Forum

[SMR 368]

Well, to be fair it's probably not quite the Ponzi scheme as the Catholic church is, but then the Catholic church has been doing this for a couple thousand years. But it's all the same; those at the top get richer through the ministrations of those at the bottom. You've been told that LDS officials live only off their non-LDS savings, and heck you could probably even establish a paper trail that proves this, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think that the guys at the top aren't rich because of LDS.

So you acknowledge that it could be demonstrated by paper trails that the leaders aren't receiving any sort of compensation for their service, yet still claim they are getting rich because of it. Either you are implying that fraud is going on, in which case I suggest you investigate and get evidence, or you pulled this one out from where the sun doesn't shine. Either they are getting rich and it can be demonstrated, or they aren't getting a cent, as I assert.

In fact, Joseph Smith Jr. died (yes violently) a very rich man who'd managed to satisfy his sexual appetites amongst the many women (I believe 33, including a couple teenage girls) who he called his wives. All because of his position as head of LDS. Brigham Young did very nicely too, parlaying his position as LDS leader to become Governor of Utah, and eventually winding up with a grand total of 55 wives. (seems Brigham Young had an even larger sexual appetite than his predecessor.)

You're correct that Joseph Smith Jr. was murdered. By an angry mob actually, a terrible way to go. Yet another example of religious extremism, this time perpetrated by Christians against Christians.

Mormonism provides us a great view of how religions get started though, since it's so young. But the very essence of the Mormon story is just as crazy as Christianity because it requires a ridiculous suspension of disbelief. From golden tablets that are the very foundation of the religion but that only Joseph Smith ever saw, to the claim that native American Indians are the descendents of ancient Jewish Lamanites, even though scientific DNA testing has proven this to be false beyond a doubt. It's also interesting that when Joseph Smith was translating the scripture from the Book of Lehi, when some of these translations were lost (stolen actually, by a woman who saw through his scam) and he was asked to reproduce them, he claimed God was angry at the loss, and so God forced him to translate from the Book of Nehi, which told similar but different scripture. This was obviously to cover up the fact that he'd been making it up as he went along, and there was no way for him to reproduce the lost pages. If he'd actually been reading from the golden tablets, he could have re-recited the pages word-for-word. According to Mormonism also, the garden of Eden was in Missouri. This is just touching on the tip of the LDS iceberg, I haven't even touched on polygamy or posthumous baptism or any number of other Mormon practices that simply defy belief.

We can discuss polygamy, the 116 pages and the Book of Nephi (not Nehi), posthumous baptism, the location of the Garden of Eden, or a number of other like topics if you want, but I really don't see much of a point. Your basic claim is that these things "defy belief." That's subjective. I believe them. We're sort of at an impass.

A couple points I will address, just because your facts are undeniably wrong. 12 other people saw the golden plates and testified in writing to their existence. Although several of them later had a falling out with Joseph Smith and went on with their lives (effectively leaving the church) they all reaffirmed to their deaths that they had seen and handled the plates.

Second, DNA evidence has been inconclusive, as far as I have heard, but even if there were conclusive evidence that American Indians and Jews are not genetically linked, such evidence would be meaningless. Jews are Biblically members of the tribe of Judah. When Israel split into the north and south kingdoms, the "Jews" were in the southern kingdom. According to the Book of Mormon, American Indians are descended from the tribe of Manasseh (of the northern kingdom). Due to the conquest of the northern kingdom in the 6th century BC, no other members of that tribe can historically be placed. Admittedly, all the tribes can be traced back to Jacob, so modern Jews and American Indians should have a common ancestor. But anybody who claims that they can conclusively prove that two groups of people, who have intermarried with goodness knows who, don't share a common ancestor several dozen generations back aught to be viewed with suspicion. DNA testing just isn't that good and there are far too many unknowns.

My point about Joseph Smith is not really focused on what exactly he had but rather on the fact that he died because he would not deny his claims about the Book of Mormon and first vision. Anybody who concocted a fraud, for whatever reasons, would not reasonably perpetuate that fraud when it would mean death. Either he was a prophet or he was crazy. But to claim that he concocted a story for personal gain and affirmed it to his death is, in my opinion, the claim that defies belief.

Look up the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The short story is that a wagon train crossing through Mormon territory on their way to California was ambushed by the Mormon militia. There was a lengthy siege, and eventually the Mormons convinced the emigrants that they would be allowed safe passage if they layed down their arms. The emigrants agreed, they lay down their arms and abandoned the wagons with all their possessions, and walked away. But it was just a ruse by the Mormon Militia. About 120 men, women, and children were massacred by Mormons, although the youngest children were spared and taken to be raised as Mormon children. The belongings of the emigrants was auctioned off at the Cedar City tithing office. This massacre wasn't just carried out by isolated members either. The very highest ranking members of LDS were involved in its planning and eventual implementation.

I half expected you to bring up the Mountain Meadows Massacre but was hoping for something a little more interesting. You are actually greatly stretching the truth on this one. There is no doubt that the massacre occurred or that it was terrible.

However, the church at the highest levels did nothing to encourage or plan the massacre and excommunicated all who were involved. As you agreed, we're talking about organizations, not the actions of individuals who may happen to belong to a group.

Admittedly, it's a matter of what you consider high ranking, I suppose. The local stake president (a leader of a small group of congregations) was involved in planning the massacre and was excommunicated. However, that isn't really high ranking. There are literally thousands of stake presidents and a stake president might be compared to a priest or pastor in other Christian faiths. Thus, we're talking about the actions of isolated local leaders who were disciplined and removed from authority by higher ranking leaders.

(and apologies if my anti-Mormon stance offends you, it's not personal against you, and I certainly don't consider Mormonism worse than any other religion. I know the feeling though, Atheists get it from all sides. )

No offense taken. I realize you're sort of equal opportunity about these things and I don't take offense on the internet anyways (don't much in real life either).

Edited April 17, 2010 by SMR

[mox 298]

So you acknowledge that it could be demonstrated by paper trails that the leaders aren't receiving any sort of compensation for their service, yet still claim they are getting rich because of it. Either you are implying that fraud is going on, in which case I suggest you investigate and get evidence, or you pulled this one out from where the sun doesn't shine. Either they are getting rich and it can be demonstrated, or they aren't getting a cent, as I assert.

Fair enough. The research is more involved than I really want to get into, so I'll concede the point.

We can discuss polygamy, the 116 pages and the Book of Nephi (not Nehi), posthumous baptism, the location of the Garden of Eden, or a number of other like topics if you want, but I really don't see much of a point. Your basic claim is that these things "defy belief." That's subjective. I believe them. We're sort of at an impass.

And this is the problem with religion. The "I believe button" shuts down all intelligent discourse, it stops reason at the door, and yet for some reason it still holds an iron grip over its adherents. If I were to come up to you and say I was an angel and you should believe what I'm saying, you'd laugh and keep walking or you'd at least demand some proof from me. And yet you and billions of others trust in the word of people who are long dead who themselves had no evidence other than "you should just believe me."

(sorry for the Nephi typo)

A couple points I will address, just because your facts are undeniably wrong. 12 other people saw the golden plates and testified in writing to their existence. Although several of them later had a falling out with Joseph Smith and went on with their lives (effectively leaving the church) they all reaffirmed to their deaths that they had seen and handled the plates.

So here's where my ex-Mormon friend comes in. I popped off an email to him and said "hey, I thought Smith was the only one to see the tablets." He told me I was wrong (at least, according to Mormon history), and that yes, a total of 12 people are said to have seen the tablets. So once again I was wrong it seems. And yet, the more we chatted about it, I realized that it would have actually been much better for LDS credibility if only Smith had seen the tablets.

Out of the 12 who saw the tablets, every single one of them were either close family or financial associates. (the last witness was the mother of 5 of the other witnesses) And of the 12 witnesses, Smith did indeed have a falling out with 5 of them and said (actual quote) ""Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them." Now when the main prophet of your religion calls you "too mean to mention," that's a huge blow to your credibility. Do you think there'd be a Matthew in the bible if Christ had said he was "too mean to mention?" And granted, this doesn't directly refute the men's claim to have seen the tablets, but then Smith would have been cutting off his nose to spite his face if he'd called them liars, and the four men would have just proven Smith right by recanting. Why would God show the tablets to 5 men who were "too mean to mention"?

One of the first three alleged witnesses to the plates, Martin Harris, said that the following eight witnesses never saw the plates but were coerced into signing a document that said they had. But probably the most damning evidence of all comes from Brigham Young himself who said (actual quote) ""witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel."

In fact, from what I understand, there's a great deal of controversy within the Mormon community as exactly how to treat the golden tablets. Some say it's merely allegory (we hear this all the time from other Christians about The Holy Bible too when they want to explain away a difficult matter), some say the tablets were never physical but were sort of an angelic hologram, and some even think it's just best to forget the whole thing. (this from my ex-Mormon friend, it's actually all very new but interesting news to me.)

And this is a common theme we see throughout all religion. There's never ever a clear-cut trail to the actual evidence. It's always twisted, convoluted, shady, and more importantly, better explained by just plain old human nature. And the stranger the story gets, the more unbelievable the explanations get. Can you imagine if scientists tried to get away with this? If they had some scientific dogma about how the universe was created, and the more questions people asked, the more convoluted and crazy their explanations got in order to fit the actual facts? As I've said before, science is all about theories, and once the theory doesn't fit the evidence, it is discarded. Even Steven Hawking, who based his entire career on the notion that the universe was created from a singularity, admitted he was wrong when the evidence didn't support it. Religion can't do that though. You can't rewrite a tablet handed down from an angel, and you can't say Christ changed his mind about beating your slaves because god cannot be wrong, and god can't change his mind. And since dogma is static, the stories to justify it all just get more and more convoluted. Like...

Second, DNA evidence has been inconclusive, as far as I have heard, but even if there were conclusive evidence that American Indians and Jews are not genetically linked, such evidence would be meaningless. Jews are Biblically members of the tribe of Judah. When Israel split into the north and south kingdoms, the "Jews" were in the southern kingdom. According to the Book of Mormon, American Indians are descended from the tribe of Manasseh (of the northern kingdom). Due to the conquest of the northern kingdom in the 6th century BC, no other members of that tribe can historically be placed. Admittedly, all the tribes can be traced back to Jacob, so modern Jews and American Indians should have a common ancestor. But anybody who claims that they can conclusively prove that two groups of people, who have intermarried with goodness knows who, don't share a common ancestor several dozen generations back aught to be viewed with suspicion. DNA testing just isn't that good and there are far too many unknowns.

So very wrong, and this is a subject I know quite a bit about. DNA testing *is* that good. DNA is, in fact, fantastically good, and it doesn't matter how many people your family has married through. If we had the DNA from one of your relatives from 100,000 years ago, we can link you no matter if your ancestors reproduced through every single race in existence. So when I say that science has conclusively proven the Book of Mormon wrong on the lineage of American Indians, it's absolutely true. The ONLY way you can get past the issue is to say that god deliberately obscured it. And I suspect that very argument has already been used by Mormon apologists. (in which case, one wonders why god would deliberately obscure the DNA in such a way as to mislead us to believe that native Americans have a much different lineage, rather than just make the DNA trail stop completely.)

Speaking of conclusively proven wrong, the supposed "reformed Egyptian" characters from a transcript of one of the golden plates has also been conclusively proven as having come from no known language on the planet. Smith is very precise when he says that this language was being used by prophets between 400 BC and 200 AD, but we know this with absolute certainty not to be true. And the reason is simply that in Smith's time, he could not conceive that we would ever have the technology to investigate his claims. (actually I doubt he ever believed his church would grow as big as it did). Smith had no concept of DNA, and no idea that we would ever know so much about our natural world. If Smith were starting his church today, he'd be MUCH more careful. (Hubbard made the same mistake when he founded Scientology. His e-meter is predicated on the basis that we didn't know as much about electromagnetism in the 1950's as we do now, where we can show the e-meter to be absolute rubbish.) We see this in religion all the time. Ancient Hebrews couldn't conceive of the notion of a round earth, a heliocentric solar system, or even a non-geocentric universe, so their creation story revolved around the mysticism of the day. Not a single religion has been able to step forward outside of their own timeframes like a god should allow them to do. Joseph Smith should have transcribed Hebrew or Aramaic, not this fake alphabet that has no basis in any reality. But he didn't, because there was no divine hand guiding him.

My point about Joseph Smith is not really focused on what exactly he had but rather on the fact that he died because he would not deny his claims about the Book of Mormon and first vision. Anybody who concocted a fraud, for whatever reasons, would not reasonably perpetuate that fraud when it would mean death. Either he was a prophet or he was crazy. But to claim that he concocted a story for personal gain and affirmed it to his death is, in my opinion, the claim that defies belief.

Smith never realized he would die until it was way too late. A mob killed him while he was in jail awaiting trial (for crimes including polygamy). But even still, I agree that nobody can say that he'd have ever recanted even if he'd had time and understood how immediately threatened his life was. And if he had recanted, it could simply be explained away as the most expedient thing for him to do at the moment. After all, most people will (rightly so) say just about anything to save their life. I don't think this is proof one way or the other that Smith really was a Prophet or crazy or just a scam artist.

I half expected you to bring up the Mountain Meadows Massacre but was hoping for something a little more interesting. You are actually greatly stretching the truth on this one. There is no doubt that the massacre occurred or that it was terrible.

Hmmm...well if you want a different example, then probably the most damaging institutionalized aspect of Mormonism has to be polygamy. And while yes I know that the main LDS church has rejected polygamy (basically because it was politically expedient), the fact is that it's still very much tolerated and even encouraged. Entire polygamist sects exist in Utah and Arizona, and even now in the 21st century, teenage girls and young women are being forced into becoming the nth wife for some guy to satisfy his sexual appetites in the name of religion. It's a very real and disgusting persecution that continues to be practiced by Mormons. And while you can certainly claim that these sects don't have the blessings of the main branch of LDS, the fact is that they've justified it because the Prophet Joseph Smith made it a central tenet of Mormonism. (LDS may have renounced polygamy, but the Joseph Smith Jr., the Prophet, never did.) So who you gonna believe, the Prophet or the guys running LDS in the modern day?

No offense taken. I realize you're sort of equal opportunity about these things and I don't take offense on the internet anyways (don't much in real life either).

Well, I was actually hoping to snag a MENA or a Catholic. My "anti-Mormon" arsenal isn't quite spectacular.

[visaveteran 1]

When all is said and done, nobody can prove the existence or absence of God. It blows my mind every time I ask how can something come from nothing? How can a tiny ball of dense energy explode and create the universe? And where did that ball of energy come from?

Nobody can tell me. So we all are asked to believe in an act of creation from nothing. Here is where we choose our way to accept the universe's creator.

The atheists are as clueless as anyone else when it comes to pre-creation reality.

A spiritual means of coping seems our most common way...as shown by the ancient cave drawings in France. It seems man is a spiritual being in his natural setting. I don't see anything in history to tell me atheism is a natural reaction to man's view of his world.

OK, so some government scientists brainwashed by the leftist university professors don't believe...so what? They can't prove anything regarding pre-creation reality either. Why should we buy into their own wild azz guess?

[SuperDuper! 230]

Mox likes to make it seem that you are special if he responds to your posts or not. Letz just make him feel that he is just so special.

[mox 298]

When all is said and done, nobody can prove the existence or absence of God. It blows my mind every time I ask how can something come from nothing? How can a tiny ball of dense energy explode and create the universe? And where did that ball of energy come from?

Nobody can tell me. So we all are asked to believe in an act of creation from nothing. Here is where we choose our way to accept the universe's creator.

Gravity is still just a theory. We can observe its effects, and so far it's fit into everything else we know about the universe, but when all is said and done, nobody's provided 100% evidence necessary to outright prove gravity.

So it seems to me that we've managed to overwhelmingly show that if there really is a god, the universe doesn't need him. There's no special "spark" that's necessary for life--we're able to show how at the molecular level everything about beginning and sustaining life is explainable through science. There doesn't seem to be a soul, or if there is one then it definitely doesn't interact with the matter our bodies are made up of. Prayer doesn't seem to work--studies have shown that there's no difference in recovery rates of sick people, whether a group of people prays for them or not. And although a lot of cancer survivors like to credit prayer for their recovery, there's never been a single case of prayer restoring a severed limb or re-grow part of a damaged brain or any other organ for that matter.

The atheists are as clueless as anyone else when it comes to pre-creation reality.

Agreed. We know what happened moments after the big bang, but you're correct, we don't know about before. It's very possible that there was a god who set all of this in motion. But as I said before, if this is true then he stopped interacting with the universe at the moment of the big bang. And while I'm not going to get on my knees to worship this theoretical architect of the universe, it's a pretty intriguing idea that's fun to think about. (are we just some science fair experiment that some inter-dimensional geek threw together the night before?)

A spiritual means of coping seems our most common way...as shown by the ancient cave drawings in France. It seems man is a spiritual being in his natural setting. I don't see anything in history to tell me atheism is a natural reaction to man's view of his world.

OK, so some government scientists brainwashed by the leftist university professors don't believe...so what? They can't prove anything regarding pre-creation reality either. Why should we buy into their own wild azz guess?

Well...this is a HUGE subject in and of itself. The simple answer to why we should "buy into [atheism's] own wild azz guess" is that science has proof, and religion doesn't. Science can prove there wasn't a flood, we can prove dinosaurs didn't exist 6,000 years ago, we can prove that native Americans aren't the descendents of ancient Jews, we can prove the earth wasn't created in 6 days (and by the way, the Hebrew texts are very specific that these are *literal* days, not allegory), we can prove a link from man to ancient primates, we can prove that life isn't held together by anything supernatural, and the list goes on and on. Some scientists have proposed that there is a "believing in God" gene that's been passed down via natural selection (to support your "spiritual" theory), but there are other scientists who just believe that humans have always wanted the comfort of being able to explain natural phenomena. Lightning is scary, but at least there's a reason for it if Zeus is pissed off about something.

I'd HIGHLY recommend checking out from your local library "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is a highly respected scientist who's done some breakthrough work in genetics and human biology. Dawkins handles your last question vv in the detail and expertise that it deserves. (and heck, if anyone has a book they think would change my mind, please recommend here. I'm a voracious reader of even subjects I disagree with. )

[mox 298]

Mox likes to make it seem that you are special if he responds to your posts or not. Letz just make him feel that he is just so special.

Y'know Hopp, there's no reason to stir trouble. Everybody's been very respectful in this thread, and there's some good conversation. I have, in fact, replied to everyone in this thread. Was there some point you made in the past that I didn't give the attention you thought it deserved? I'm sorry if it's been eating away at you, you have my apologies. If you have something to contribute to the topic at hand, please join in. Otherwise, we really don't need the personal attacks that contribute nothing.

[SuperDuper! 230]

You are ok in my book, Mox. I guess I was thinking that you respond to posts that only serve to strengthen the RUB clique, and ignore all the "outsiders" here. Glad to see you are open to communicating with us non-rub folks. Hey, we can't all be so lucky to find a fine rub woman. Fact is, I have a great interest in all things Russian, as one of my best friends is Russian and so is his immigrant wife. Cheers.

[visaveteran 1]

A few thoughts:

I hate to bet on science. Science is about as stable as the winds. What was certain science yesterdy is debunked tomorrow. And for every scientist who proves something, there are two others disputing his work. In the interest of survival, some scientists put out dubious work and publications to keep their jobs and gain tenure and keep their grant money flowing. These are not all honorable people out to solve the mysteries of life. They serve their financial interests, their egos, and the need to bring home the bacon like all of us.

The older people get, the less they will embrace atheism. When mortality becomes a central issues for older people, a rethinking will occur. And, I do think there is truth that there are no atheists on the battlefield. When someone is wounded, they often cry for God's help.

Atheism will never draw large numbers of people because what do they offer? Nothing. No eternal life, no forgiveness, no hope. Some religions even give you a second chance here on earth. Others offer lots of virgins. The atheists tell you this is it. No second chance, no life after death. No hope.

For all the science, we exit into mystery. Nobody really knows what lies ahead. Who offers the hope of more destiny? Not atheist scientists.

[mox 298]

I hate to bet on science. Science is about as stable as the winds. What was certain science yesterdy is debunked tomorrow. And for every scientist who proves something, there are two others disputing his work. In the interest of survival, some scientists put out dubious work and publications to keep their jobs and gain tenure and keep their grant money flowing. These are not all honorable people out to solve the mysteries of life. They serve their financial interests, their egos, and the need to bring home the bacon like all of us.

The scientific community is certainly not without its problems. But unlike religion, science is self-correcting. There's not some supreme Scientist sitting at the top of the big scientist organization handing down edicts from on high. Science is horizontal: there is no hierarchy. When one scientist puts bad science out there, a dozen other scientists will jump onto it and show why it's bad. There are numerous examples of this. In fact, there are really NO modern examples of the opposite--i.e. scientists embracing clearly disprovable research. Remember the guys who purported to discover cold fusion? Not only was his research viewed with immediate skepticism (even before his paper was submitted for peer review) but his name was eventually so tarnished that he's lucky if he's working as lab attendants these days. When the stolen climate change emails from research being done at the University of East Anglia were revealed, there were ripples through almost every scientific discipline--the fear that a vast portion of global climate change science really could have been forged and that roughly 98% of scientists worldwide had been duped was mind-blowing. But it turns out that scientists weren't hiding the data or forging it or misrepresenting it. A high-level investigation revealed no wrong-doing, and that the supposed smoking guns were just a few disorganized scientists. The emails are public. The independent review council's records are public. Everything about this case is public.

Compare and contrast to any religious scandal. The current scandal involving the Catholic Church and their willful tolerance of pedophile priests is a perfect example. You have the Pope deciding how it's going to be handled, what evidence will be released to the public, and even deciding the scope of the problem. There will be no independent review, few if any public records on how conclusions were reached, and in the end the Pope is going to do what he wants to do. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives have been destroyed over the centuries by Catholic Church policy, but there will be no reconciliation because there can be no transparency.

You may hate to "bet on science," but my advice would be to hold onto your money when it comes to religion too. (split the difference, go agnostic! )

The older people get, the less they will embrace atheism. When mortality becomes a central issues for older people, a rethinking will occur. And, I do think there is truth that there are no atheists on the battlefield. When someone is wounded, they often cry for God's help.

I read an interesting study a few years back where atheists who had served during WW2, Korea, and Vietnam were interviewed. Not a single one of them recanted in moments where their life was in severe danger. 3 noted examples of atheists in foxholes who never recanted would be Ted Williams, Pat Tillman, and Ernest Hemingway. The "no atheists in a foxhole" saying is a wive's tale.

Atheism will never draw large numbers of people because what do they offer? Nothing. No eternal life, no forgiveness, no hope. Some religions even give you a second chance here on earth. Others offer lots of virgins. The atheists tell you this is it. No second chance, no life after death. No hope.

Possibly. But does wanting something because you can't imagine the alternative make it so? I'm pretty sure that I'm a happier person than most religious people. I live my life with the understanding that this is the only one I get. There's nothing after that, no second chances, so I have a lot of motivation to get this one right. And I don't have this lingering fear that no matter what I do, I still might not make it into heaven, like a lot of religious people suffer. I'm also allowed to use my own brain 100% without being weighed down by dogma. I'm free to form my own opinions on birth control, abortion, politics, morality, science, philosophy, art, or anything else. Whereas others are looking forward to their heavenly reward, I'm living it right now where it counts.

I don't know if atheism will ever supplant religion. I hope so, but as I said, hope doesn't make reality. But I do believe mandkind would be much better off.

For all the science, we exit into mystery. Nobody really knows what lies ahead. Who offers the hope of more destiny? Not atheist scientists.

On the contrary. Science is the *only* thing that offers insight into what lies ahead. There was a time when the idea that we would ever understand the heavens was inconceivable, even heresy. Everything in the heavens was considered God's domain--unknowable, forever shrouded in mystery. We've gone from that to knowing what our universe looked like milliseconds after its creation. We can now even look back to see what our young universe looked like, billions of years ago. We've put men on the moon and robots on other planets. We've even discovered dozens of planets outside our own solar system. We are *this* close to forming a unified theory of everything (TOE), and unlocking even more mysteries of how the universe was created and how it all operates. There's even serious research being done on the possibility of other universes and even dimensions. We've mapped out the human genome, most of the human brain, and we can even simulate an insect's brain in a computer. (it's hard to do anything bigger only because the amount of computing power is ridiculously intensive.) Science offers insight into ourselves and the very fabric of the universe, and almost all of it is accessible to anyone who's interested. (want to see what the universe looked like when it was only 700 years old? You can!) What does religion offer us? An afterlife that may or may not exist that we may or may not qualify (and holy ####### the alternative lake of fire for eternity is f*cking heinous, thank you very much loving and caring god), and unexplained mysticism that we have to twist to fit our modern lives and thoughts. Ugh. This does not sound like hope to me.