Can atheism be illogical, even if there is no god?

[slamjet]

Maybe read Doctrine and Covenants 76 in it's entirety

Are you clairvoyant enough to declare that I haven't? This is a useless jab.

You may not be able to give him the knowledge of a Father in Heaven but you can testify to it after all that is the crux of the Gospel.

I do believe that I have, many times. In a way that is not condemning but in the spirit of my own experience and trying to be helpful and compassionate. So let's back off a bit with the innuendos.

[slamjet]

This also includes:

Doctrine and Covenants Section 76

34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—

35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.

--------------

Alma Chapter 39

6 For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness.

.....

and thus the "caution proceed with care"

Throwing out these scripture and the condemning tone is not helpful one bit. A person is not going to take this as a warning, but the ramblings of a self righteous person. Now I've read a bunch of your posts and you usually don't come across that way. But here you have. There are different ways to approach different people according to the situation they're in. This is not the way here. Nor is this a tone of compassion.

[Backroads]

I've never had a problem with atheism or atheists, though I think society tends to try to stick them into a little box just as much as they do with any other spiritual persuasion. I've seen atheists who try to define exactly what atheism is other than "no belief in deity" and it's annoying.

[GeneC]

Throwing out these scripture and the condemning tone is not helpful one bit. A person is not going to take this as a warning, but the ramblings of a self righteous person. Now I've read a bunch of your posts and you usually don't come across that way. But here you have. There are different ways to approach different people according to the situation they're in. This is not the way here. Nor is this a tone of compassion.

No condemning tone, you're reading into it which is not there, you are condemning me and with an attitude I might add.

[Guest]

This also includes:

Doctrine and Covenants Section 76

34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—

35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.

--------------

Alma Chapter 39

6 For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness.

.....

and thus the "caution proceed with care"

This is, of course, ASSuming that the OP received witness of the Holy Ghost.

Yeah, shocking isn't it... that there are missionaries walking out there who hasn't received a personal testimony of Christ. They walk around talking about Christ because their mother has a testimony of it. Yep, in the LDS church even!

So yeah, TGFR... this doesn't necessarily apply to the OP, especially in the light of his confession that he went to war not for the cause but for the money - i juxtaposed that to his going on a mission...

[GeneC]

This thread is to help the OP not attack the posters. But thanks.

[Guest]

This thread is to help the OP not attack the posters. But thanks.

Yep, we're trying to do that. Help the OP, I mean.

So, to the OP:

Going on a mission is like joining the military. You really can't go into it without a testimony. Joining the military "for the paycheck" is really not a good way to go. Heck, working at McDonalds for no other reason but for a paycheck is not a good way to go either!

But, I think you might be selling yourself short here. You may think that the only reason you joined the military is because of the money. But, this might not be entirely true (of course, I'm not you, so I'm just guessing here). American patriotism runs strong in this country. Not only that - the call for freedom is ingrained in the culture. So that, even if you don't agree that we should have gone to war, at the very least you, as a military personnel, and my husband, as an American citizen, both share the same ideals that this country is founded on. The same ideals that the American military is sworn to protect.

And in the same manner... I think it may also apply (and like I said, I'm not you, so I'm just guessing here) that even if you don't agree with the religious practice, you still share the ideals founded on God.

An atheist and a Christian does not necessarily have to share their belief in a God to be able to share in the fruits of good ideals - love, charity, service, and goodwill to all mankind.

Logic only applies to what your brain can understand. When it comes to emotions, logic flies out the window.

[GeneC]

This is, of course, ASSuming that the OP received witness of the Holy Ghost.

Yeah, shocking isn't it... that there are missionaries walking out there who hasn't received a personal testimony of Christ. They walk around talking about Christ because their mother has a testimony of it. Yep, in the LDS church even!

So yeah, TGFR... this doesn't necessarily apply to the OP, especially in the light of his confession that he went to war not for the cause but for the money - i juxtaposed that to his going on a mission...

You receive the Holy Ghost at confirmation after baptism.

D&C 76 Sec 35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it (you receive it at confirmation to the Gospel) so it applies to the OP.

[Guest]

You receive the Holy Ghost at confirmation after baptism.

D&C 76 Sec 35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it (you receive it at confirmation to the Gospel) so it applies to the OP.

Not necessarily.

I was baptized Catholic. They said the same thing to me. So... what makes LDS different?

Hah!

Yeah. The testimony. You can get dunked in the water without it...

[Guest Godless]

You receive the Holy Ghost at confirmation after baptism.

D&C 76 Sec 35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it (you receive it at confirmation to the Gospel) so it applies to the OP.

Receiving the Holy Ghost isn't the same as receiving a testimony. Does an 8 year-old really have a genuine understanding and testimony of the gospel, or is the child just doing what mommy and daddy raised him/her to do? Are a handful of missionary lessons enough to give an investigator a strong understanding and testimony? I think (and hope) you know the answer to both questions.

I was baptized at age 8 and attended the LDS church until I was 20, and yet I never felt that I had a real testimony of the gospel. Am I unpardonable as well?

[slamjet]

I was baptized at age 8 and attended the LDS church until I was 20, and yet I never felt that I had a real testimony of the gospel. Am I unpardonable as well?

Apparently so. Heck, I was baptized at 8 and fell away, way away and I have been working my way back and hopefully will be rebaptized in a few moths. If the scripture were to hold to the interpretation given to it by TGFR, then there would be no hope for me ever returning to God, let alone to membership in the Church. Thus is the danger of humans taking a scripture and passing judgments where they should not.

[GeneC]

Receiving the Holy Ghost isn't the same as receiving a testimony. Does an 8 year-old really have a genuine understanding and testimony of the gospel, or is the child just doing what mommy and daddy raised him/her to do? Are a handful of missionary lessons enough to give an investigator a strong understanding and testimony? I think (and hope) you know the answer to both questions.

I was baptized at age 8 and attended the LDS church until I was 20, and yet I never felt that I had a real testimony of the gospel. Am I unpardonable as well?

The Guide to the Scriptures lds.org

Unpardonable Sin

See also Blaspheme, Blasphemy; Holy Ghost; Murder; Sons of Perdition.

"The sin of denying the Holy Ghost, a sin that cannot be forgiven."

The answer is best left up to you as that is between you and God.

[GeneC]

Apparently so. Heck, I was baptized at 8 and fell away, way away and I have been working my way back and hopefully will be rebaptized in a few moths. If the scripture were to hold to the interpretation given to it by TGFR, then there would be no hope for me ever returning to God, let alone to membership in the Church. Thus is the danger of humans taking a scripture and passing judgments where they should not.

Lot's fall away few Deny the Holy Ghost. Becoming an Atheist by definition is denying it.

[hordak]

Total anecdotal evidence here but i heard a story once...

Missionaries at MTC were having a Q&A session with one of the 12 and one ask "What does it mean to blasphemy the holy ghost?" the response was "There is only one person in this room who needs to worry about it, and I don't plan on it"

Don't know if the story is true or not but it was said by Joseph Smith

After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it.

Seems you must have some great knowledge, to commit it. Didn't Peter deny Christ? If he was there with him, denied him for his own personal benefit, and was still able to pass on the Priesthood (D&C 27) i think someone questioning, millennial later in spite of having a baptism would not committing the unpardonable sin.

[slamjet]

Lot's fall away few Deny the Holy Ghost. Becoming an Atheist by definition is denying it.

Mosiah 15:26 But behold, and fear, and tremble before God, for ye ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel against him and die in their sins; yea, even all those that have perished in their sins ever since the world began, that have wilfully rebelled against God, that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them; these are they that have no part in the first resurrection.

The points here:

• Willfully rebel against God.
• Refuse to keep the commandments of God.
• Die in their sin.

The ones who turned Atheist that I know turned away from God, but they are far from not keeping his commandments. The first and great commandment, love one another, is still kept by most. Your interpretation needs to be broadened for it to be correct. You can't take one verse and declare it the end-all without adding context.

[GeneC]

Yes, your points are also valid - but not all inclusive.

You can't take one verse and declare it the end-all without adding context.

Why can't I - the Church does on LDS.org - are they wrong too?

The Guide to the Scriptures lds.org

Unpardonable Sin

See also Blaspheme, Blasphemy; Holy Ghost; Murder; Sons of Perdition.

"The sin of denying the Holy Ghost, a sin that cannot be forgiven."

[Guest]

Lot's fall away few Deny the Holy Ghost. Becoming an Atheist by definition is denying it.

Not necessarily. Absence of proof and all that...

It's not that they are atheists because they denied Him. It's mainly because they haven't found sufficient proof of His existence...

Hence, a testimony.

[slamjet]

Why can't I - the Church does on LDS.org - are they wrong too?

Good grief, It's a matter of CONTEXT! I've had enough with this. It seems like you're arguing for arguments sake. There have been a few of us who have tried to enlighten and supported our positions. I've even learned a thing or two. But by your posts, you refuse to take any of this in, you only throw it back as irrelevant. I think we've posted enough to give the general idea that it's not as cut and dried as you would want it to be.

[rameumptom]

Here are two verses from LDS.org's scripture guide that discuss the Denying of the Holy Ghost:

• They have no forgiveness, having denied the Only Begotten Son, having crucified him unto themselves, D&C 76:30–35
• The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, which is shedding innocent blood after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, D&C 132:26–27

Note that one must not just be baptized and decide the Holy Ghost does not exist. They must receive all the covenants of the temple, and then still do more after that. A person must have a perfect knowledge of Jesus Christ (as Joseph Smith taught in the King Follet Discourse), and then willfully go against him by committing murder.

[GeneC]

It's interesting that you should bring up Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse.

From the Discourse

The Unpardonable Sin

A man cannot commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, and there is a way possible for escape. Knowledge saves a man; and in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge. So long as a man will not give heed to the commandments, he must abide without salvation. If a man has knowledge, he can be saved; although, if he has been guilty of great sins, he will be punished for them. But when he consents to obey the Gospel, whether here or in the world of spirits, he is saved.

A man is his own tormenter and his own condemner. Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. The torment of disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. I say, so is the torment of man.

I know the Scriptures and understand them. I said, no man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, nor in this life, until he receives the Holy Ghost but they must do it in this world. Hence the salvation of Jesus Christ was wrought out for all men, in order to triumph over the devil; for if it did not catch him in one place, it would in another; for he stood up as a Savior. All will suffer until they obey Christ himself.

The contention in heaven was -- Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; and the devil said he could save them all, and laid his plans before the grand council, who gave their vote in favor of Jesus Christ. So the devil rose up in rebellion against God, and was cast down, with all who put up their heads for him. (Book of Moses -- Pearl of Great Price, Chap. 4:1-4; Book of Abraham, Chap. 3:23-28.)

The Forgiveness of Sins

All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against Him.[12] After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him.

[12] For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame" (Hebrews 6:4-6).

Those who sin against the light and knowledge of the Holy Ghost may be said to crucify more than the body of our Lord, they crucify the Spirit. [back]

****

Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual

Course Details

Chapter 33

Kingdoms of Glory and Perdition

3. Those who deny the Holy Ghost after having received it and crucify the Savior unto themselves will have no forgiveness and will be sons of perdition (see D&C 76:34–36 ; Matthew 12:31–32 ).

(as noted in the King Follett Discourse)

“And he that believes, is baptized, and receives the light and testimony of Jesus Christ, and walks well for a season, receiving the fulness of the blessings of the gospel in this world, and afterwards turns wholly unto sin, violating his covenants, he will be among those whom the gospel can never reach in the spirit world; and all such go beyond its saving power, they will taste the second death, and be banished from the presence of God eternally” (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 476–77).

[Dravin]

It's all coming down to Thanks view being that having the Holy Ghost confirmed upon you as being synonymous with receiving the Holy Ghost. Likewise the opposite view is based on a distinction between the two. It's a classic scenario for a stalemate.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Dravin

[rameumptom]

The thing is that the confirmation is not as we often think. It isn't like receiving the priesthood authority, where they lay hands on your head, say some stuff, and then you have the priesthood. Instead, confirmation uses particular words: "Receive the Holy Ghost." This is not like an ordination, but more of a command. We are commanded to receive the Holy Ghost. It may or may not come to us in that moment, and when it comes, the Holy Ghost may not come in its fullness.

what is the fullness of the Holy Ghost? It is when the third member of the Godhead fully reveals the 2nd member of the Godhead, Jesus Christ. It is then Christ's responsibility as the 2nd Comforter to take us to the Father. Only in the event of receiving a fullness of the Holy Ghost are we then capable of denying the Holy Ghost, not before. We must be able to see the sun at noon day and deny it. That is not the same as looking up on a cloudy day, feeling the sun's rays passing through the clouds and not believing it is there. We must have the Holy Ghost present us fully to Christ, and then we must completely reject him.

Now, having said that, a person who receives the Holy Ghost and then rejects the gospel and Christ, will not be ready for a celestial glory. Such a person, depending upon the light and truth they had, will receive either a telestial or terrestrial glory instead. So, there still are consequences.

[Guest]

Rame and Thanks... and actually everybody in this thread are pretty much saying the same thing.

Y'all agree with the definition. Y'all know what it takes to commit the upardonable sin.

The problem is not the understanding of what's unpardonable.

The problem is the application of such a definition to a specific person - in this case the OP.

None of us here - except maybe the prophets - can discern if a person has sufficient testimony to even be qualified as having "received the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God."

Just because you got baptized and had the Holy Ghost bestowed upon you at confirmation does not necessarily mean you have "received the Holy Ghost and know God". Because all that is in the hearts of men. A person (8 years old or 80 years old, doesn't matter) can stand and be baptized, confirmed, and attend the Temple, be sealed to a spouse, yet not have sufficient testimony to know God. The only way for us to know that this person has a testimony is if we ARE God.

From what the OP expressed - he never gained that testimony.

So, yeah, you can stop arguing now and just listen to me. :D:D

[Bluejay]

Hi, Riverogue.

So, is leaving "true religion" as one deciding that god doesn't exist, then considered illogical, even if god really doesn't exist?

Don't get hung up on this. Logic can only work with what you put into it. All it means for X to be logical is that X is the conclusion when you start with certain premises and apply some reasoning to them.

So, even things that don't match reality can be considered logically valid, because there's no rule about what can and can't be used for starting premises (e.g., given certain starting premises, I can logically conclude that all crows are bright yellow, for instance).

-----

If you're worrying about whether or not you've put enough thought into it, let me just say this: No, you haven't put enough thought into it. But then, nobody else ever has, and nobody ever will. You're not going to find the solution to quandaries that philosophers have been drooling over for centuries in any timeframe that will be reasonable or useful for you.

All you can really do is make whatever decisions you can based on whatever information you have available to you, and leave room to adjust your decision if and when that information gets updated.

As to how you do that... I don't know. But, then, neither does anyone else, so don't get hung up on that part, either.