Finrock

Good afternoon Islander. I hope you are having a great day! :) Although I agree that Jesus Christ is God, I'm not sure what you are saying makes sense. Here is the question: Was Jesus Christ God when He was born as a spirit child? Your response, if I understand it correctly, is that it makes no difference when Jesus was born as a spirit child when dealing with infinity, He is still God. I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around this type of reasoning and I'm not even sure if you answered the question at all. Can you please help by further expanding on what you mean or perhaps correcting my understanding of what you are trying to say? Regards, Finrock

Hordak, Thanks for sharing your insights. I don't think so. I think members in general dilute the corolary between missionary service and home teaching as if they are two separate classes of things. I am, obviously, contending that they are not. Again, D&C 4 makes it clear: If you desire to serve God, you are called to the work ("the work" in this case is referring to serving as a full-time missionary). There is no equivocation going on in D&C 4. Also, you will be a home teacher for the rest of your mortal probation, so "time" is an irrelevant factor. The factors are priesthood oath and covenant, desire to serve God, and obedience. If you desire to serve God, you are called to the work. That question is settled. Now the question becomes one of worthiness only, not a question of oughtness. And questions of worthiness are things that we are held accountable for; they are not excuses that exempt us from our duty or responsibility. Now don't get me wrong, if a young man is struggling with the decision to serve a mission then they should most certainly pray. But, I don't think the prayer should be one of "should I go" but rather "will you help me to be worthy to go." Regards, Finrock

Good morning hordak. I hope you are well today! :) Read and understood. So, I've read several comments at various times that "Raising the Bar" changed how a young man approaches going on a mission. I agree that it does "change" it in some respect. However, it seems that "Raising the Bar" has been used as an excuse not to go or that it isn't a requirement. I think this is wrong. Home Teaching is one of those callings that is a matter of "policy". If you refuse to accept that calling you are neglecting your priesthood oath and covenant. In the same way, preaching the gospel and serving a full-time mission for a young man is expected. I want to also emphasize that there is a true corolary in responsibility and duty between home teaching and serving a full-time mission. President Harold B. Lee said: "Missionary work is but home teaching to those who are not now members of the Church, and home teaching is nothing more or less than missionary work to Church members” (Preach My Gospel, pg. 13). Now, let me further quote D&C 4: I emphasized verse 3. If we have desires to serve God, we are called to the work. If we do not have desires to serve God, then it behooves us to get to a point in our life where we do want to serve God and that is what "Raising the Bar" means. Verse 5 gives us the qualifications. This is Raising the Bar: A young man must have faith, hope, charity, love, with an eye single to the glory of God, and this is what qualifies them for the work. The question for the young man is not "Should I server a full-time mission?" but rather "Am I worthy and prepared to serve a full-time mission?" I firmly believe that God will hold priesthood holders accountable for not serving a full-time mission if they could have done so but they were simply unwilling to "raise the bar" and/or unwilling to serve God. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Roundearth. I hope today finds your better than yesterday (in all respects)! :) I've been meaning to address some of the moral arguments you've made in the previous pages of this thread but because of the massive amounts of comments, posts, and side arguments, it has been hard to keep everything organized. One of the greatest faults, in my opinion anyways, of debating in such a format as a discussion forum. Nonetheless, I have some time now. I will try to break this line of discussion in to two parts. First, I want to quote some points and arguments that you have made. My intention in quoting your moral and ethical arguments is so that they can be acknowledged, understood and later contrasted. Once we've confirmed that I have understood your position correctly I will move on to present the LDS "Theory of Ethics". I will present what I believe a vast majority (if not all) of Mormons would agree is an accurate description of the LDS theory of ethics. So, I will now proceed. Below are quotes of what you have offered as descriptors of your moral position. Below your quotes is my summary and understanding of your moral view: To summarize, this is what I understand you are saying: Life is an end in itself as opposed to life being a means to an afterlife. This fact gives life meaning. We also find meaning by doing well/good/right in our life. You seem to define what is good as that which promotes your survival. Even though the actions that are justified by the principle of self preservation are subjective, you claim nonetheless that logic provides boundaries. You give as an example that an atheist cannot hold ridiculous moral positions. Conclusion: Life itself and doing good in life provide meaning to an atheist. Self preservation is the source of the moral code of an atheist tempered by the bounds of logic. Did I accurately present your perspective (I will happily be corrected if I am wrong)? Regards, Finrock

I think you are confusing dark matter with anti-matter. From my understanding there are basically two types of dark matter. However, I believe the dark matter that is hypothesized to be most prominent in the universe and in which we are interested in is what is referred to as "nonbaryonic dark matter". "In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that is undetectable by its emitted electromagnetic radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter and dark energy could account for the vast majority of the mass in the observable universe" (Source). Something else that is interesting about nonbaryonic dark matter is that it "...does not interact with electromagnetic radiation, [and] is not only "dark" but also, by definition, utterly transparent" (invisible matter anyone?). Further, "[t]he vast majority of the dark matter in the universe is believed to be nonbaryonic, which means that it contains no atoms and that it does not interact with ordinary matter via electromagnetic forces. The nonbaryonic dark matter includes neutrinos, and possibly hypothetical entities such as axions, or supersymmetric particles. Unlike baryonic dark matter, nonbaryonic dark matter does not contribute to the formation of the elements in the early universe ("big bang nucleosynthesis") and so its presence is revealed only via its gravitational attraction" (Source). What relevant (relevant to our discussion that is) conclusions or inferences can be drawn from this data? I think there are at least a couple but on the surface it seems to further dilute your position. However, because it's my bed time further exploration of this by me will have to wait for another time. Regards, Finrock

How do you know Darwin humbly examined all of the evidence? So? Something like 80% of Americans believe in God. How do you know? You've met all of them? Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Roundearth. I hope all is well with you! :) This is clearly a straw man. I'll try to place some assertions you've made in context so that the true issue can be demonstrated. I've numbered the quotes for easier reference. You presented the following problems with the idea of spirit: 1. In response I stated this: 2. Your response: 3. I then responded thusly: 4. You later made this assertion about the spirit: 5. In quote 1 you misrepresent the LDS understanding of spirit. But you also claim science has found nothing that a spirit could plausibly be composed of. The Traveller and other's have provided plausibility of matter existing that appears to us to be "invisible" and which could plausibly be spirit. Mormons do not know what spirit matter is exactly but science does provide plausibility for such a material to exist that conforms to what we do know about spirit matter, namely that "[t]here is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes" (D&C 131:7) In quote 2 I again correct your misrepresentation of what a spirit is. In quote 3 you claim that "invisible matter" gives rise to the same issues as immaterial spirit. First, you misrepresented the Mormon understanding of spirit matter once more. It is inaccurate to call it "invisible matter". Based on our scriptures, we clearly understand that spirit matter can be seen, albeit with "purer eyes". What that means is outside of the scope of this discussion, but we should be precise. Second, you are making the positive claim that invisible matter gives rise to the problems you presented in quote 1. In quote 4 I challenge your assertion in quote 3 by asking you if Higgs Bosons, which science currently accepts as the "tacky stuff" that gives matter mass, which truly is "invisible matter" since it hasn't even been observed, gives rise to the same problems as spirit matter. You never responded to this question. In quote 5 you claim that science hasn't found any evidence of invisible matter that doesn't displace matter. Traveller provided evidence that bosons are exactly those types of things. So, there is "invisible matter" in reality that doesn't displace other matter. In response to this claim, you created a straw man. In each of these cases your arguments have consistenly misrepresented your opponents views and you have ignored evidence that counters your claims by making straw man positions and then attacking positions that your opponent hasn't made. So, in summary, so far your contentions against the spirit have been this. 1. Immaterial spirit cannot exist. This was refuted because spirit is not immaterial. 2. Invisible matter has the same problem as immaterial spirit. This was refuted because science shows there is invisible matter and it isn't problematic with nature since it is reality. 3. There is no plausible substance in science for spirit. This was refuted because science provides several plausible things that might be spirit or at least there are classes of substance in our universe that do not adhere to Newtonian physics, yet they actual exist. 4. There is no evidence for invisible matter that doesn't displace other matter. This is refuted by the fact that bosons exist and they act in contradiction to your claim. Conclusion: Your arguments against a spirit matter fail. Regards, Finrock

Bluejay, I understand your position and I concede that your argument against Roundearth's position is likely the stronger argument. Based on the content of Roundearth's arguments in the OP, I do not agree. Let me demonstrate why. I've been basing my arguments on those specific points and questions presented by Roundearth. For instance, in the OP Roundearth gave two arguments for being an atheist. These are positive claims for atheism. They were the following: 1. Humans are born without any a priori knowledge and/or experience. Burden of proof principle requires all claims be validated before they should be accepted. All arguments for God fail. Therefore, a person isn't justified in believing in God. (Roundearth calls this weak atheism). 2. God is defined as a supernatural and infinite being. Law of identity is that all things act in accordance with their nature and to exist is to be defined. A supernatural being is above nature, therefore it is amorphous and undefined and based on the law of identity something undefined cannot exist. Therefore a God cannot exist. An infinite being exceeds all limits and therefore it cannot be defined. Therefore God cannot exist. Now, I may have missed the post where Ockham's Razor was presented as an argument against God so I've made no attempt to even speak on this point, instead my arguments have thus far been focused on the assertions made in 1 and 2 above. For assertion 1, I have challenged the premise that humans are born without any a priori knowledge and/or experience. Second, Roundearth is making a positive assertion that all arguments for God fail, yet he provides no reason to believe this assertion other than that he deems it so. Although I haven't had a chance to yet, I also challenge the idea that all arguments for God fail. For assertion 2, Roundearth's conclusion, at least based on how he has presented it in his OP, is contingent upon the definition that God is a supernatural and infinite being. Hence my claim that from an LDS frame of reference Roundearth's argument is irrelevant because we do not understand God to be supernatural or infinite in the sense that Roundearth is using these terms. Second, his conclusion isn't supported by his premises. His premises do not support the conclusion that a God cannot exist. At best they support the conclusion that a supernatural and infinite God cannot exist. Again, because Roundearth has failed to understand his target audience and address those metaphysical realities in his argument, this line of reasoning is irrelevant to Mormons. Are you sure? If that is the case then there are many things that Roundearth must deny that are generally accepted as scientific "truths". I'm not sure that all empiricism is so strict. I think in my post that you responded to this is one of the points I was trying to make albeit maybe not clearly. It seems to me that Roundearth's premises are arbitrarily and irrationally setup so that his position is necessarily true. Of course when this is the case, you generally attack the premises and that is what I have been attempting to do. As I stated in the begining of this post, I do not disagree that "in the end he is trying to transform and absence of evidence into evidence of absence". However, I do think that my contentions so far have been justified and relevant based on the actual and specific arguments that Roundearth has demonstrated in this thread (at least the ones that have come to my attention). Regards, Finrock

I've always understood the promise in Moroni to be one of affirmative confirmation. What I mean is that one must approach God, already believing the words which they have read, and then asking God to confirm what they believe so that they may know that they are not in error. In addition to how the scripture in Moroni 10 is worded, I think that the account of the conversion of the father of king Lamoni in the Book of Mormon is a good example of this principle. In this account the missionary Aaron teaches the father of Lamoni. Let me quote a portion of this account here to illustrate the type of faith that the father of Lamoni demonstrated: "5 Now the king said unto them: What is this that ye have said concerning the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, this is the thing which doth trouble me. 6 And also, what is this that Ammon said—If ye will repent ye shall be saved, and if ye will not repent, ye shall be cast off at the last day? 7 And Aaron answered him and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God? And the king said: I know that the Amalekites say that there is a God, and I have granted unto them that they should build sanctuaries, that they may assemble themselves together to worship him. And if now thou sayest there is a God, behold I will believe 8 And now when Aaron heard this, his heart began to rejoice, and he said: Behold, assuredly as thou livest, O king, there is a God. 9 And the king said: Is God that Great Spirit that brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem? 10 And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he created all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this? 11 And he said: Yea, I believe that the Great Spirit created all things, and I desire that ye should tell me concerning all these things, and I will believe thy words. (Alma 22; emphasis added)." Now, I have bolded portions of this dialoge because it is telling of the mindset of the king. That the king stated that he would believe all that Aaron would say demonstrated an exercise of faith. The king did not know at this point if Aaron was speaking the truth but he was willing and desirous to listen and to believe. So, after Aaron ends his teaching here is the kings reaction and response: "15 And it came to pass that after Aaron had expounded these things unto him, the king said: What shall I do that I may have this eternal life of which thou hast spoken? Yea, what shall I do that I may be born of God, having this wicked spirit rooted out of my breast, and receive his Spirit, that I may be filled with joy, that I may not be cast off at the last day? Behold, said he, I will give up all that I possess, yea, I will forsake my kingdom, that I may receive this great joy. 16 But Aaron said unto him: If thou desirest this thing, if thou wilt bow down before God, yea, if thou wilt repent of all thy sins, and will bow down before God, and call on his name in faith, believing that ye shall receive, then shalt thou receive the hope which thou desirest. 17 And it came to pass that when Aaron had said these words, the king did bow down before the Lord, upon his knees; yea, even he did prostrate himself upon the earth, and cried mightily, saying: 18 O God, Aaron hath told me that there is a God; and if there is a God, and if thou art God, wilt thou make thyself known unto me, and I will give away all my sins to know thee, and that I may be raised from the dead, and be saved at the last day. And now when the king had said these words, he was struck as if he were dead" (Alma 22). Here is the pattern. The king had been prepared by the Spirit to listen to Aaron's words. He was sincere in his desire to learn and to know the truth of Aaron's words. He exercised faith even before knowing if Aaron spoke the truth declaring that he would believe Aaron. Afterwards, he asked how he could receive the witness and knowledge that Aaron had spoke of. The king then prostrated himself on the ground in humility and with faith, already believing Aaron's words and being willing to sacrifice all that he had, he prayed and asked God to reveal Himself to him and his prayer was answered by a powerful witness. So often I have seen how people approach the Book of Mormon with an attitude of skepticism and disbelief and then ask for God to dispel that disbelief. However, this isn't exercising faith and this isn't the pattern. Faith is to believe in things not seen or known. Instead, I believe, Moroni's challenge requires that we already believe and have faith in the things we have read and then we ask God to confirm our belief and faith and if we do this with sincerity and with real intent (just as the king was willing to give up everything once God confirmed the truth to him, in the same way a person needs to be willing to give up old beliefs and act on whatever truth God reveals to them), then we will know that the Book of Mormon is true, with a surety that can only come when the Spirit witnesses of the truth of things to our hearts. Regards, Finrock

Good morning Bluejay. Not sure if we've meet before, but if not it is a pleasure to meet you! :) I'll let Traveller respond to the rest of your post to him but I think your categorical statement that I've emphasized is in error. Roundearth began this thread postulating an argument that for the most part is irrelevant within the LDS frame of reference. His position that a supernatural being cannot exist is based on a Nicene Creedal Trinitarian view of God which doesn't apply to our understanding of God. Although it could be said that Roundearth was at fault for not familiarizing himself with his target audience prior to taking on this debate, I won't hold him accountable for that. Many attempts have been made to make Roundearth aware of the LDS perspective on God, etc. and Roundearth has consistently failed to take in to account these very important metaphysical differences between Creedal Christian views and the LDS Christian view. Hence his arguments are arguments of irrelevancy. This is fallacious and seems to demonstrate an insincere desire for a reasonable debate. To give some examples of what I am referring to so I'm not just making empty claims consider the following examples. Note that because of time constraints I will not be quoting the actual exchanges although anyone doubting my claims can look back on the thread to find the references: 1. Roundearth was provided explanations and links to articles that define the LDS view of God. In response Roundearth rejected that we believe in God at all because he isn't "supernatural". Hence, Roundearth "wins" the debate by default because of the unreasonable and ridiculous notion that a god can only be god if it is supernatural and if it is supernatural it cannot exist. I would love to be able to prove all my positions by selectively chosing my definitions so that they necessarily prove my point! 2. When it was explained to Roundearth that our understanding of spirit is not something that is immaterial but rather it is material, he created a straw man by designating it as "invisible matter" instead of dealing with or even trying to understand the LDS perspective on what this matter is or how it might be explained using current understanding of science, etc. These are two examples that I can currently think of from the top of my head but I know there are also other examples of fallacious reasoning that I can demonstrate after going back if requested. In any event, this is sufficient to demonstrate that the categorical statement that Roundearth's only failure on this thread is to use the Ockham's Razor as proof of anything, is false. I also want to note that it is because of Roundearth's failure to deal with the metaphysical issues presented in points 1 and 2 above (and others not addressed here) that make the Traveller's, Snow's, mine, and other's posts relevant. The issue here isn't just how or when does the principle of Ockham's Razor apply and what it proves, but what point is there in debating an opponent who refuses to accept and address the metaphysical and ontological truths within a Mormon frame of reference? Regards, Finrock

I asked Roundearth several pages ago since Higgs Bosons are "invisible matter" do they also fall in to the same category as the spirit? He never responded. I've tried to establish some common definitions by which to continue our conversation, but thus far it appears that any definition that is inconvenient to Roundearth's position he rejects. I've also provided several links to articles that explain the LDS worldview. It seems Roundearth has even rejected our definition of God saying that the being we believe isn't God because it isn't supernatural. Again, another convenient way to sidestep having to address a serious flaw in his reasoning. I'm not a scientist, but I understand at least enough to know that there are many things in our universe that we are unable to observe and measure yet we've inferred their existence from other phenomenon. Regards, Finrock P.S. I'm saying these things to you because thus far I've been unable to get Roundearth to respond to my points but I wanted to just reiterate that I've brought them up before.

Interesting post. :) Let me first state that I am not familiar with Rand and works so my comments are based simply on the content and the thoughts that I have derived from this post. Although there was much more in your post, this particular section of it was the most problematic to me. To state, as an axiom, that the senses cannot be attacked, is borderline ludicrous. The senses have been proven over and over again to be fallible and they can and should be questioned. Not to say that they cannot be trusted at all, but to say that they cannot be attacked, simply isn't true. It seems to me that this axiom is being asserted only so as to prop up a philosophy that would otherwise fail without it. Regards, Finrock

In mainstream Christianity you would be correct. But, LDS theology allows for an understanding that is different. Please consider the following: Source Regards, Finrock

Roundearth, I also thought you might find this article interesting as well and I believe it will give you some useful insight in to how, generally speaking, Mormons approach science: Science and Religion Here is a quote from the article: "James Talmage said, 'What is the field of science?" His answer: "Everything. Science is the discourse of nature and nature is the visible declaration of Divine Will…. There is naught so small, so vast that science takes no cognizance thereof…. Nature is the scientist's copy and truth his chief aim" (c. 1895). "Among our young people," Talmage wrote elsewhere, "I consider scientific knowledge as second in importance only to that knowledge that pertains to the Church and Kingdom of God…. Nature, as we study it, is but the temple of the Almighty'" (c. 1900). Regards, Finrock

"Co-equal with the universe" is probably what confused you. Equal and co-equal are not the same terms. The "co" in front of equal designates a separate object or being. I think a better term to use would have been co-eternal. Further, what each individual Mormon may or may not believe cannot be gauged. However, I am certain that rameumptom was not making the assertion that some Mormons are pantheist. And even if some Mormons are, they are holding to an unofficial and non-doctrinal position. Vanhin explained in one of his posts how we understand who and what God is. God is a man. He has a physical body with parts. He has a head, eyes, ears, nose, hands, feet, etc. These are not figurative parts, but actual parts. God takes up space. He can physically be in only one place at any given time. God has emotions and passions. He feels sorrow, happiness, etc. He is not the universe. He is not amorphous. Really? Higgs Bosons are "invisible matter" do they also give rise to similar problems? Here are some places to go: Specific Articles: God Attributes of God Spirit Spirit Matter Broad Scope of Articles: Encyclopedia of Mormonism Guide to the Scriptures Regards, Finrock

Roundearth, It is obvious you are misunderstanding the LDS position. For instance in response to an LDS poster you said the following: You've misunderstood rameumtoms posts. He did not say that God is the universe. He is saying that God is not outside of the Universe. He is a part of it just as we are. Further, you made the following comment: At least three LDS posters have pointed out that we do not believe that there is any such thing as immaterial matter. We do not believe that spirit is immaterial. We believe it is matter. So, again, your contention in so far as the Mormon frame of reference is concerned is irrelevant as there is no problem of matter interacting with matter. We are not pantheistic, we are indeed theist and we are also Christians. Again, I encourage you to take some time to seriously understand our theology if you are going to try to contend against it. To continue to argue against straw men and misinterpretations isn't rational and it is counter productive. Regards, Finrock

Cool. Thanks for the response. In case anyone is interested, I cannot believe that "intelligence" of the "spirit matter" type is only a material to be acted upon. There are several reasons why I cannot accept this line of Mormon theology although I will not attempt to explain all of those reasons here or to debate them. For me, I have for years felt that I am an individual and that I, just as Joseph Smith has stated, am co-eternal with God. And of course not just me, but all of us, are co-eternal with God. Saying that I am co-eternal with God because the spirit element from which I am composed of is eternal is reprehensible to reason. I can only exist if I can think and have awareness. If Joseph Smith's words about us being co-eternal with God is true, it must by necessity be that we as individual, intelligent, and sentient beings have exist forever. But further, given the fact that we are co-eternal beings with God makes the reason for our being here and the reason why God would have a plan at all, meaningful. If we are co-eternal beings, limited and constrained, then a being such as God who has perfect love would do nothing less than provide us, limited and constrained beings, with an opportunity to be like Him. Lastly, the notion that I am a co-eternal being with God further deepens that sense of responsibility that I have in being a free agent. In every phase of my existence I have had the ability to choose but it was God who gave me the environment in which I could actually exercise that ability to choose. Anyways, I just wanted to share my perspective. Thanks for answering my questions and helping me to understand this line of theology in Mormonology (if that is even a word). Kind Regards, Finrock

First off, thank you for taking part in this dialogue. I hope I'm not coming across as someone who is trying to drill you! I understand where you are coming from on this point. However, I think you've skirted my question. :) If I may, I'll specify my question further by asking do you believe that Jesus the Christ, who was born and lived on this earth, always existed? Regards, Finrock

You're right. My paraphrase was incomplete. I'll address this point in another post because I want to quote your from page one. That wasn't the intent of my statements that you quoted. I was working on the premise that a innate basic capacity to distinguish between right and wrong exist as evidence by universally recognized moral positions. For example, it seems universally true that people recognize murdering another person to be wrong. That there exist some universally recognized moral values is indicative of an innate capacity. Again, you are contending this point out of context. The premise is that universally recognized moral values are indicative of at least a basic innate capacity to recognize right from wrong. If this is true then it begs the question, where did this innate capacity originate from. Given that no naturalistic viewpoint has been able to successfully answer this, then it seems the source of this capacity is "supernatural" (I'm using this term loosely). Well, the OP made distinctions between atheist. We are addressing strong atheism. Are you contending that not all strong atheist share the belief that there is no God? No it isn't. Your argument artificially limits what a god is or can be because it is easier for you to argue against an amorphous supernatural god. Christianity recognizes that there are gods many and lords many. The Israelites at one point worshipped a golden cow as their god. So, I'm not equivocating, I'm making the point that although atheist deny a personal god, they nonetheless have made something else their god. Hence, there are no true atheist. There are only those who deny a personal deity. As a side note, it may be a good idea, since you are addressing a primarily a Mormon audience, for you to account for the Mormon understanding of deity in your argument and change it accordingly. As it is, your two major points in the OP are largely irrelevant within the Mormon frame of reference. Regards, Finrock

OK. Then do you also believe that Jesus Christ did not exist at some point? Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Seminarysnoozer. :) Thanks for the response. I think I understand what you are saying however, I still am unclear on one point. Based on your understanding of intelligence, do you believe that prior to a spirit child being begotten by Heavenly Father that they have awareness of self and intelligence (thinking, living, aware entity)? Regards, Finrock

Godless, thanks for taking the time to respond. :) I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion. The fact that memetics exist doesn't say one way or another about the innate human capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. This innate basic capacity to distinguish between right and wrong, or our conscience, is a subset of the mind-body dilemma. Not only could it be argued that altruism and compassion are a result of evolution, etc., but the argument has been made and the mind-body dilemma has yet to be resolved via a naturalistic explanation. How you personally define worship isn't exactly relevant. Worship, by definition, does not necessitate adoration without question. In fact, my worship has not been without question and critical thinking. However, the important point I want to make is that I disagree with your personal definition of worship. If you look at dictionary definitions for worship none of them include anything to the effect of adoration without question. Also, I disagree that worship, by definition, implies infallibility. The Greeks worshipped infallible gods. Worship does not, by necessity, include infallibity. I agree that our way of worship is different, but it is clear that strong atheist participate in a form of worshipping. A god, by necessity, does not need to be infallible in order for it to be worshipped. A god need not be a personal god. A god can be an object, a set of beliefs, a philosophy, etc. This objection is only a play on words and semantics. For instance, the LDS have what are called the Articles of Faith. They are statements of fact about our religion. They describe principles that we believe to be true. I would be completely correct in calling them statements of belief even though they are statements of fact. In fact, if they weren't statements of fact then they couldn't be statements of belief. Are you claiming then that you do not believe those statements of fact that the OP made? If you believe them, why are they not statements of belief for you? It could be. But, this objection is besides the point. Although some theist (myself being one of them) include science, reason, and logic as a part of their religious practice, it isn't the object of their adoration. On the other had, a strong atheist venerates science, reason, and logic above all else. They entail the guiding principles by which a strong atheist lives and makes sense of existence and being. As I've already illustrated, by definition, science, reason, and logic is the strong atheist's god, they provide the principles of the strong atheist's belief system, and they are the object of a strong atheist's worship. Atheist even have their saints and religious leaders. I don't agree with everthing that has ever been said by every prophet or religious leader in the LDS faith and one would not use this as a means to deny them as being my religious leaders or examplars. In the same sense an atheist doesn't have to believe or agree with everything that Richard Dawkin or Carl Sagan says or postulates in order for them to be treated by atheist with the same type of awe and respect that a theist would treat their saints or religious leaders. Also, at least based on my interactions with atheist, I could probably argue that the works of Carl Sagan are pretty much scripture to atheist. In my experience, Sagan's secular humanist views have been frequently used by atheist to counter theists' foundation of morality. In any case, that the god is different and that the form of worship is not the same as with a theist does not negate the fact that based on the definition of god and worship, a strong atheist believes and worships a type of god. Given all of these facts, how is atheism not a religion? The truth is that atheism is a religion and therefore my original objections to some of the OPs descriptions of what an atheist is, stand. Regards, Finrock

Good morning Godless. I hope your day has started off great! :) Actually your argument against Vanhin's line of reasoning is nonsensical. It's like saying because Tom describes his brother differently than Vanhin describes his brother, therefore Vanhin's brother (or Tom's brother) doesn't exist. If a religion describes a being as God that is contradictory or inconsistent to a being that another religion describes as God, then the conclusion isn't that no God exist because of inconsistency. The conclusion is that each respective religion is obviously describing and worshiping a different God. Slightly off topic, but I would also comment that the challenge of the would be seeker of truth is to determine which God is the true God (the law of non-contradiction precludes all of the Gods from being true). Regards, Finrock

Good evening Godless. It is a pleasure to meet you! :) I'm going to paraphrase here, but Roundearth contended in his OP that humans are born without any innate sense of right or wrong. Vanhin challenged him on this point and he conceded that indeed there are some moral questions that seem to be innate universally (i.e., knowing that murdering someone is wrong). Unless you want to argue otherwise, I would ask the question, where does this basic/fundamental yet universal distinction of what is right and wrong come from? Evolution cannot explain it and innate by definition precludes any environmental influence. The source of this innate distinction of right and wrong can not be found on earth and neither is it even possible for science to explain it. I contend that the source of this innate capacity is a higher being, aka God. Of course, it could be some aliens with super technology and they are providing this apparently innate capacity. But, now it's simply semantics. Any alien capable of such feats are certainly higher beings, relatively speaking, and we end up just replacing the term "God" with the term "alien". In this hypothetical situations, both the aliens or God would seem to be influencing us with supernatural abilities. Anyways, I base my comments (although not exclusively) on the fact that there is innately within humans a basic capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. This innate capacity cannot be explained by science because it isn't quantifiable and there is nothing in nature (to include evolution) that can be the source of it (insofar as we can tell, anyways). That being the case, we are left with a source of this innate capacity that is, at least coming from a naturalistic perspective, outside of nature. Given these facts the only rational option left is that the source of this innate capacity is some higher being or God. Well, this where we need some clarification and agreement on. I concluded my post by asking what is faith and what is religion? We should add to that list of questions, what is worship? Worship isn't just limited to adoration for a deity. There is hero worship or worship of objects or ideas. Veneration to a person. To venerate someone is to show great respect towards an individual perhaps because of their intelligence, or their good deeds, etc. Are you saying that atheist do not venerate great scientist or science in general? Is there no adoration for Richard Dawkins and the principles he espouses amongst strong atheist? Your form of worship is different than mine, but it is worship nonetheless. The OP has even provided what appears to be a list of dogmatic statements about atheism and it's beliefs. Religion - "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" 1. Atheist have a set of beliefs. The OP provided some tenets and all atheist are constantly alluding to the scientific method, reasoning, and logic. 2. Atheist have an object of adoration (they worship something). Atheist venerate science, reason, and logic. They have individuals in the community such as Richard Dawkins that are shown great respect and by all appearance esteemed as religious leaders. 3. Atheist have a god. They do not believe in a personal and supernatural deity, but their god is science, reason, and logic or any other object that commands their time, respect, and/or resources. So, again, the object of a strong atheist's worship and adoration is different and your religious principles are different in many cases than mine, but based on definition, I cannot see how any atheist can rationally claim that they aren't practicing a religion. They can only say they aren't practicing a religion that believes in a personal God with supernatural powers. This point and my previous point are closely tide together and the ideas overlap to a large extent. However, to elaborate I will say that just as worship isn't limited to the worship of some personal divine being, neither is a god limited to a personal divine being. A god can be anything or anyone that is of the greatest value to an individual. So, money can be a god. A car can be a god. Atheist deny a personal god, but they've only replaced a personal god with a god of science and reason or something else. So, this is what I mean. Regards, Finrock

Good evening Roundearth! Welcome to the forums. I hope you have been well today. :) OK, so you are establishing some definitions to guide the discussion. I, however, do not accept all of your definitions. At least I do not accept them at face value. Some clarification is in order. You make certain assertions. I will list your assertions and then I will briefly describe why I do not agree with this definition: 1. Strong atheist can have a moral foundation -> I do not accept this definition. I would contend that if there is no God, then neither is there any moral foundation. 2. Strong atheism is not a religion -> I do not accept this definition. Experientially I see very little difference between a theist zealot and a strong atheist. Only the object of their adoration and faith varies. Rationally, I would argue that atheism is as much a religion as Christianity, etc. 3. Strong atheist do, in fact, exist -> I do not accept this definition. This goes with point 2. I would contend that strong atheist worship a god, even if it isn't the God of Israel, etc. There are many types of gods and one need not worship the God of Christianity or any "personal" God in order to worship a god. Now, some of this may be a matter of semantics. A point of clarification would be to agree upon a definition of what is "religion" and what is "faith". Regards, Finrock