EricE

Do you have any data to prove this assertion?

Nope. That's both a shifting of the burden of proof, and a classic argument from ignorance. If you make the claim that god found your car keys, and someone says they don't believe you, the onus is on you to demonstrate the truth of the claim you're making. An argument from ignorance is when you can't think of another answer, that therefore is proof of something else. For example, theists frequently point to the biogenesis and demand an atheist explain how it happened. Well of course the honest response is that we do not yet know the answer to that. But because we don't know the answer does is not evidence a god did it. That's a whole separate assertion that requires demonstrable evidence of its own.

@Carborendum "Mormons tend to walk a balanced line on this one. God as the innate being was never created (as any of us). He has always existed. But the God we know now "became" God. " Interesting. How do you know that is true?

Ditto for Mormon missionaries

Occam's Razor isn't proof of anything. It's a philosophical guideline you can use on any question. It's rare to hear a theist use it, given that there are few bigger assumptions than the existence of an invisible man who cannot be independent confirmed.

@MormonGator "God" inherently means "uncreated creator" to believers. Whoops! Watch the generalizations, I don't think you can even say that of all Mormons, let alone all theists. Looking solely at Christianity, there are thousands of denominations, each with their own version of god. And in my experience, if you asked every single person in every single pew to define god, you would have as many different answers as there are people.

Thanks for that response. As for me, I wouldn't be surprised if our experiences were very similar. I grew up in a strongly LDS family. Father was in the bishopric, mom was YW president. I was in leadership as a deacon, teacher, priest. Then I taught the gospel doctrine class. I was as true a believer as you could ask for. Then I was asked by a friend whether or not I could be wrong. I took several weeks to answer, trying to be as honest with myself as possible. I felt very strongly that I had a personal relationship with god, but I was forced to admit to myself that my feelings of the truth of that relationship are indistinguishable from only an imagined relationship. So I began to search for actual evidence. I walked through each of the classic theist arguments. I read through both the BoM and the Bible again. I spoke with church leaders (including a GM who lived down the street). And as much as I truly didn't want it to be the case, if I could only come to the conclusion that there isn't any evidence for the existence of (any) god that I have seen that isn't subjective, unfalsifiable, a fallacy, and irrational. I can't say there are no gods (that would be to commit the same mistakes I see those making the opposite assertion making). But the only possible rational conclusion one can draw on any subject is to refuse to believe until the evidence can be produced. If you don't demand evidence and think critically, it leaves you open to believing every harmful thing out there.

Interesting. So one more question, and I hope it comes across as sincerely as I mean it. Does this mean you don't care whether you are believing true things or not?

To quote another person I'm a fan of, faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have a good reason. We can agree that teapots are created things, because (as you said) we have no example of teapots growing naturally. This is how we determine design, but comparing it to nature--whether a teapot or a watch (reference!). Here's something crazy, I agree that all created things have a creator! Unfortunately, where the argument from design falls apart is that we have no examples of humans, or trees, or planets, or novas being created. We only have examples of them occurring naturally. Thus it would be irrational to claim something is designed when you have no evidence or examples of that happening.

Haha. So as a theist how do you prove the orbit?

Haha, I sense I'm being toyed with?

Makes sense. And I'm impressed, not many LDS folks that I interact with have read Hume. Are you very familiar with Bertrand Russell?

Humanism has nothing to do with a belief in a god. There are many Christians who are humanists.

I'm a big fan of Hume (even more so Russell), especially when he talks about how the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence required. But I don't know if I could label my atheism as just like anyone else's. I don't believe a god exists, and no one has ever been able to provide any actual evidence that would say the super natural is real. If someone were to provide reliable evidence for the truth of a god's existence, then I would change my mind. But until that evidence can be provide, the only rational position anyone can take is to reject the extraordinary claim.

I explained more below, but agnosticism/gnosticism describe knowledge, while theism/atheism describe beliefs. An atheist does not believe a god exists, while a theist does. An agnostic atheist/theist does not claim knowledge, while gnostic theist/atheists do.

Nope. Being an atheist just means you don't believe a god exists. See my more detailed explanation of the difference below.

There's a big misunderstanding about what atheism and agnosticism mean. Being an atheist simply means you do not believe a god exists. Where a theist believes does believe a god exists. Agnosticism is about knowledge (which is a subset of belief), or specifically about what you don't know. So a gnostic atheist is one who asserts that no gods exist. (This is also known as hard atheism) So: A gnostic atheist is one asserts that no gods exist. (any decent skeptic has issues with this position as much as with theists) An agnostic atheist (aka the soft atheism position) does not believe a god exists, but does not claim knowledge. (This is me!) An agnostic theist believes a god exists, but does not claim knowledge. A gnostic theist believes a god exits, and claims to have actual knowledge that this is true.

I'm done engaging with you. I don't find your responses intellectually honest. This is my first post in these forums, so I'm not sure on how this works, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't comment again.

This almost isn't even worth responding to. You're trying to pick out individual words from my sentences to string together something for you to fight against. Let me say it one more time. I align with Sam Harris' argument that our morality is based on well being. The well being of the individual, the society, and the species.

@rpframe I don't doubt in the slightest that you believe that what you've seen or experience is accurate. But just because we think what we have experienced is accurate doesn't make it so. It's the same reason why eyewitness accounts of an incident are notoriously unreliable. I read a paper where a teacher asked his students a few days after 9/11 to write down what they were doing when they heard about it. 10 years later, the teacher got back in touch with the students and asked them the same question. Their answers were wildly different then the originals, but they were so certain of the new memories they had developed that when the teacher showed them the original answers, many responded that he must have forged them. I don't say that a god doesn't exist. I argue that there is not enough evidence to convince me or anyone else of the assertion that a god does exist. Really it all comes down to caring about whether or not what you believe is true, because our beliefs inform our actions and they don't exist into a vacuum. So the more false things you believe without evidence, the more likely you are to do the same in other areas of your life that can harm you and others.

Who is this person you're arguing against? Because I have not once argued that that polygamy was immoral, nor have I ever claimed that my or anyone's morality is based on survival of species. If you want to play with your straw man in the corner, that's fine. But perhaps you should stop quoting others so we can just ignore you.

The person I was talking to had just said there was no actual evidence. Keep up with the conversation, and discuss in context, or stop commenting because you're not adding anything helpful.

Typically when people are having a conversation, the conversation evolves as people introduce no thoughts and ideas. If you are not comfortable discussing the issues, you're under no obligation to continue engaging.

Fair enough. And I appreciate the honest answer. So let me pose another next natural question. If you have no evidence for something, how can you determine if it is true? There must be a mechanism for making that determination reliably. I understand personal prayer (aka pertained revelation). I spent many decades in the church, and was a High Priest. However, no matter what god or religion you believe in, more people have and do believe in something else. And all of those people have their own personal revelations that what they believe is true. So is personal revelation really a reliable mechanism for determining truth? I don't in any way doubt your sincerity that you believe in what you think you've experienced, but how can we determine if what you believe to have experienced is actually true?

What evidence do you have that this is the case?