Feta

This is the kind of insane thinking that religion produces. You're saying god purposefully caused a child to be sexually abused, and you are grateful for it? Even if the experience caused you to turn to god, thanking him for giving you such a horrible, damaging experience seems off to me.

OK. I'm feeling a little dumb because I'm not understanding this. If what Amulek said is true, why did Christ suffer? Packer's parable about the debtor, creditor and arbitrator implies that Christ is paying God for our sins with his suffering. He says we are living on spiritual credit. The only way I and think to reconcile Packer and Amulek is to say that Christ is the exception. He is the only one that can pay off God and become our new creditor. If, as you say, Christ did not "pay" for our sins, then how was God appeased? How was justice fulfilled?

Through the atonement, we can assume suffering is an established method of redemption for sin. However, are you saying that's not a valid method for us to become clean, because we are imperfect, and only a perfect, sinless person and suffer for our sins? If Jesus was able to meet the demands of justice through suffering, why can't we? If Jesus was unable to fulfill his role as our savior, would God have lost every one of his children by casting us off forever?

Thanks for the link. I have a few questions about it. 1) Packer says, "Each of us lives on a kind of spiritual credit." What is that spiritual credit? What have we received on credit? 2) Why is mercy necessary? Packer says, "Unless there is a mediator, unless we have a friend, the full weight of justice untempered, unsympathetic, must, positively must fall on us. The full recompense for every transgression, however minor or however deep, will be exacted from us to the uttermost farthing." I don't see the problem with that. If Jesus could take the full punishment for the sins of every person who has or will ever live, surely we can take the full punishment for our own individual sins. I'm just not seeing the requirement for the mediator. Jesus suffered for all of our sins in a matter of hours, and then it was over. When we die, why can't our loving father just spend a couple hours delivering whatever horrible punishment he sees fit, and then move on? I'm sure I seem incredibly dense to you, but please enlighten me!

Why did Jesus have to suffer at all? To me, it seems more logical that everyone should suffer for their own sins. I don't see the need for a savior. I'm sure there's a logical explanation-- I just can't think of it.

OK that makes sense. It's conceivable that Moroni could have carried the 50-60 lb plates, the breastplate, the sword of laban, and the Urim and Thummim around 3,500 or so miles over several decades. But based on the accounts of several people, there are many, many more sets of records in the hill in New York. More than Moroni could have possibly carried by himself. In my reading of the BoM it sounds like he was alone, could he possibly have had a team of people to help him haul all these records? Or is it possible he made several trips between New York and Central America?

I believe those maps show the location were the kinderhook plates were buried. Why do you think Moroni went there?

You didn't. My mistake. Yikes.

I think it's interesting. Am I not allowed to be here just because I don't believe any of it?

These may be dumb questions, but I'll ask anyway. Didn't Moroni bury the plates in the hill Cumorah in Manchester, New York? Doesn't that mean that Moroni probably didn't live in Central America?

You do not have evidence that there are no coins on your chair, but you also don't have any reason to believe there are coins on your chair. You wouldn't mock someone who said it's plausible. It is plausible. Here is a more applicable version of your analogy: No one in this country has found a coin in a chair... ever. However people claim that there are millions of coins in the chairs of this country, we just have not found them yet. Surely, as soon as people start digging their fingers deeper into the cushions they will find a plethora of coins. Yes, I would mock someone who was pushing that theory. I'm not saying there is absolutely no possibility of the remnants of a huge civilization under the ground. All I'm saying is that it's very unlikely given the evidence: 1) We have tons of remnants and artifacts from civilizations earlier than the ones in the BoM. 2) We know of no major changes to the landscape of north america between then and now that would completely hide their cities. (The hill cumorah is still there after all!) 3) No artifacts from these people have been found. Even though they supposedly were able to produce items that would last a very long time.

Why not? I do not believe that the jaredites, nephites, and lamanites existed, because there is no evidence of them. How is that not evidence based? You shouldn't require people to provide proof for things that are obvious. No one told me that cats don't believe in Jesus, it was an educated guess based on my experience with cats. The evidence suggests that not one of my pets has made a single attempt to worship Christ, despite everyone else in the household outwardly worshiping Christ. Any reasonable person would assume that my pets did not believe in god. That makes them atheists. Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of gods. I think most atheists would agree that their disbelief comes from the lack of evidence for god. I think they would agree that the things they do believe in, they believe because of the evidence. How is that not a belief system?

I'm very open to new information. Please let me know what's random and senseless about my arguments. I haven't talked to or read any teenage atheists, so I'm probably not parroting their thoughts. Are you saying the remnants of millions of people are just buried? Forgive me for thinking that's unlikely.

I think stonewalling is OK when the question is ridiculous, but I admit there is no proof that other animals don't believe in god. I have read that most animals are incapable of abstract thought - a requirement for religion - but I cannot provide proof. If you think animals are capable of believing in god, you'd better start your cats on the missionary discussions. How do you account for the absence of remnants of the great Jaredite, Nephite, and Lamanite civilizations?

I'm a fast learner.:) You can learn a lot in a single day when you're focused. You've got to be joking.

yjacket, You need to understand the difference between belief and faith. Faith is a method of belief. You must exercise faith to obtain a belief in god, because there is no proof. If you are good at using faith as a method of belief, you can believe anything, because you do not require evidence. I personally belief faith is not a good thing. Believing things for which there is no evidence is not a good thing. Comparing chimps to humans is really easy, we are very similar genetically and anatomically. It's very obvious that we are closely related. You seem to think humans are somehow separate and unrelated from all other life on this planet. We are special in that we've evolved by far the most complex and powerful brains, but we are still offspring of the common ancestors that we share with all other mammals. Our societies and cultures are more complex because of the more complex brains we have. The golden rule came about by evolution. If primitive societies had not followed it, they would not have survived, and we would not be here.

Faith is believing in things there is no evidence for. Atheism is precisely the opposite of that. Atheism is an evidence based belief system. Comparing humans to chimpanzees is not a fallacy. We are closely related. Compared to most other living things on this planet, we are very similar to chimps. And no, I never said we evolved from chimps. We are branches in the same tree, though. Ancient human societies we have record of were still humans and had the necessary intelligence to create fictional gods. I think my chimp argument showed pretty well that an atheistic society can sustain itself. Lions are atheists. Dolphins are atheists. Bees are atheists. Ants are atheists. Gorillas are atheists. Wolves are atheists. All these "Societies" function quite well without a religion of any kind. Yes, humans will act in their own best interest. Acting morally (basically, following the golden rule) turns out to be in human's best interest. That's how morals evolved. Our moral sense is an evolved trait!

I thought about this when talking to a Mormon friend the other day. Just mentioning that there is evidence that the Book of Abraham was fabricated by Joseph Smith nearly had him plugging his ears and running! I think those of us raised as Mormons were taught to have an unhealthy fear of all information that might not be testimony building. As if just hearing it you are committing some sin.

Atheism is absolutely not a religion. That makes no sense. Imagine a group of chimpanzees. They are atheists, because they do not believe in a supernatural controlling being. They believe that stealing from each other is wrong. They believe that rape, kidnapping, and murder are wrong. Everyone of these offences has a punishment whether it's violence or expulsion from the group. If everyone abides by these principles, it strengthens the group and they are all more likely to survive and reproduce. So we have a group of atheists who's morals did not come from religion. Can you not imagine that our morals developed in the same way? I really hope nobody actually believes that morals can only come from religion. I also hope nobody believes that chimps are religious!

Why can't an atheist still believe his life has meaning and purpose? I don't believe we are here for a reason. I believe it was chance that life evolved on this planet. We are by far the most intelligent organism that has evolved here. We are so intelligent that we can ask the questions, "Why am I here?", "What happens after I die?", "What is good and evil?". Maybe every culture has simply invented gods to answer these questions. I still believe my life has purpose and meaning. I'm still excited to live life even though I don't believe there is anything after this one. I still have morals even though I don't think there is a higher power that cares what I do.

You are assuming my belief in theories is completely dependent on my perceived trustworthiness of the person presenting them. This is definitely not true. I believe other peoples theories when I perceive that their reasoning is sound. That's all I need. I would let someone launch me into orbit in a rocket if I could see that they know rocket design and it appeared that they did a good job. However I will not give someone 10% of my income just because they say it's a commandment from a god that, for as best I can determine, doesn't exist. I believe Isaac Newton to be one of the greatest mind to have ever lived on the earth. The fact that he believed there must be a god was a result of him coming to the end of his intellectual capacity. Many great scientists in history have come to the same conclusion when they cannot explain with science any further. The great thing is that with every new generation, the greatest scientists explain what the earlier generations could not. Scientists are getting further and further all the time without having to give up and attribute what they cant explain as the workings of a creator. I agree, but you shouldn't believe something if it does not make sense to you. That's called irrational thinking (or faith!). I don't think you have to do mental gymnastics to read the book pray about it and get a feeling. I think you have to do mental gymnastics to explain where the book came from, and explain away all the evidence for the book being a fabrication. I don't see the irony. Atheism is not believing in god because there is no evidence for him. You don't believe in Vishnu because you have seen no evidence for it. That's not ironic. Taking the position that you won't make a decision either way is not a position at all. It's nothing. Anyone who declares themselves a proud agnostic automatically makes them not worth talking to in my mind. The why is unnecessary, in my mind. Math is just math. A tree is an organism that is the product of millions of years of evolution. The sun is a massive, continuous nuclear reaction. We don't need to explain why.

Then the child would come find you and you would hug and talk and everything would be OK. Your child would have a perfect knowledge of your existence and could ask you directly what to do. You would then answer directly and there would be no reason for the child to deny your existence. No one has told us where god is and how to find him. They've only said if you do certain things you will get a feeling (spiritual witness). I would rather see god. It would be very easy to believe he was there if I did.

Thank you LM for sharing that. I read your story and enjoyed it. I haven't heard someone explain in such detail how they gained their testimony. Perhaps I am being too quick to turn to atheism, but we all have to do our best to make rational decisions based on the information in front of us, right? At the moment what seems to make the most sense to me is that god is man made. Why is god so secretive? To get your answer you had to work intensely at at for a year, and in the end all you got was a feeling (not downplaying your experience - just trying to get my point across). Why can't he be more clear when our salvation is at stake? He sent us here, erased our memories, gave use a bunch of vague directions through difficult to understand texts and questionable authorities, and if we can't follow the instructions we can never get back to him. Why must it be so hard to communicate with him. I know, I know, its a test of faith. But why do we need a test of our faith? If god is making all the rules and handing out all the punishments, why was the atonement necessary? I just can't make sense of it all. I feel like I've live a good life up until now, I'm a good person, I try to do right. I feel like a loving god would have at least once showed me something that suggests his presence just because I ask for it. Can you imagine taking your child to a crowded place, knocking them out so they don't remember you or how they got there, and then, even though they are lost and scared, you refuse to answer their calls for help until they have showed some kind of faith in you. I'm kind of ranting, but it feels good to talk about it.

I agree I did not choose books that are favorable to mormonism, but the first thing I did was run to FAIR to see if they disputed the actual events that these books claim to have happened. FAIR seems to agree with the historical accuracy of these books on nearly everything. Believe it or not, I learned more negative information about the church from FAIR than from anywhere else. They try to explain issues that I had no idea existed! I could have read books more sympathetic to Joseph Smith, but they would probably would be somewhat biased as well, am I right? I think you are right that I've never had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I've never seen, heard, felt, or smelled him. I guess I've never tasted him either! I don't know how I could have a personal relationship with someone I've never met. Please don't take this as a jab, I'm just curious -- What is it that makes you believe you have a personal relationship with Christ?

Funny you mention rocket science and and calculus. I happen to understand these things very well! The difference between religion and rocket science, is that in rocket science all the answers are clearly laid out for you in books. No prayer or faith required. Here's how to get a testimony of rocket science: Do the following in order. 1) Learn algebra, 2) Learn Geometry, 3) Learn Trigonometry, 4)Learn Calculus (3 semesters of college courses minimum), 5) Learn to solve differential equations, 6) Take a class on fluid mechanics, 7) Take a class on heat and mass transfer, 8) Take a class on compressible fluid flow, 10) Now you can be decent rocket scientist. Actually, there should be classes on general physics and chemistry somewhere in there too. My point is that there's nothing to rationalize, no mental gymnastics, no "taking things on faith", no saying "god works in mysterious ways". You don't need a burning in your busom to tell you it's true. You just need to do the math, build a rocket and see if it flies like you thought it would. If it doesn't fly, its not because of your lack of faith, or because god had other plans. It's because you did something wrong in your calculations or execution. I believe rocket science is true because it makes complete sense to me. If it doesn't make sense to you, at least you know that you can go study run tests to verify it. Your high school math teacher can't rationalize integral calculus because he's just a high school math teacher and is not educated enough to understand it. He doesn't have to do mental gymnastics, he just has to read a book. I do not claim to know for certain that there is no god, but I believe there is no evidence for a god, so I see no reason to believe one exists and I will live my life as though there is no god. That is far different from agnosticism. Agnostics refuse to make a decision either way. If trying to avoid mental pretzelry, atheism is the way to go. The thinking involved in understanding complex math and science is no more contorted that that required to figure out what 2+2 equals. All the answers are there, you just have to go find them. You're not required to have faith in anything.