Anti-religion literature?

[Blackmarch]

I was always taught growing up, both by my parents and the church, that you shouldn't read books such as "The God Delusion", by Richard Dawkins, or "God is Not Great", by Christopher Hitchens. After leaving the church for personal reasons, I read both of these books. The God Delusion didn't even mention the LDS church, and God is Not Great briefly covered it, only giving a short history of it, then moved on to religion itself. Now I ask myself, why is it considered bad to read these books? It's just reading the other side of the story. Being told not to read these is like someone from a political party saying that they are right, but not to research the other party and saying that they are the wrong way to vote.

I was just a little confused by this and wanted your guy's opinion. Thanks!

Is it bad per se? probably not. If you want the opposing view I suppose they probably include about every anti religion type sentiment that can be found.

Why do we avoid them? well because a couple reasons-

1) Our time is better spent elsewhere, and 2) when you start getting serious about religion you'll have more than enough people bring to you every little argument that is and is not in those books no matter how logical or illogical they are.

And 3)for the most part there is nothing that is really valuable to be gained from them. Probably about the only thing that might make one want to read them is to understand the author, and quite frankly I can find more than plenty people who complain about religion, and i can find ones that can do it better.

[HiJolly]

I was always taught growing up, both by my parents and the church, that you shouldn't read books such as "The God Delusion", by Richard Dawkins, or "God is Not Great", by Christopher Hitchens. After leaving the church for personal reasons, I read both of these books. The God Delusion didn't even mention the LDS church, and God is Not Great briefly covered it, only giving a short history of it, then moved on to religion itself. Now I ask myself, why is it considered bad to read these books?

The Church tells its membership that reading these kinds of books is not recommended, that is true. And many good comments have been made in this thread as to why it makes sense for the Church to do this. The Church is a custodian of the faith, and must keep in mind the membership's spiritual health as a whole.

So Romans 14:1-3 is very much to the point: https://lds.org/scriptures/nt/rom/14?lang=eng

Some Saints can handle the negative information and opinion, but it seems most cannot. So therefore the Church advises against it, and I think that makes sense. What does not make sense is to expect the Church to act like some non-partisan arbiter of information. It is not. The Church is an advocate of Christian living of the Mormon flavor.

It's just reading the other side of the story. Being told not to read these is like someone from a political party saying that they are right, but not to research the other party and saying that they are the wrong way to vote.

I was just a little confused by this and wanted your guy's opinion. Thanks!

I think that's fine on an individual basis, depending on one's spiritual/rational capabilities.

I myself have been educating myself both within and without the Church, and then investigating "anti-" Mormon claims specifically, for most of my adult life.

I have read the God Delusion, the End of Faith and God is not great. My favorite was Harris' the End of Faith. All were very useful to read & understand. For me.

HiJolly

[Faithless]

I look at it with the concept of the Apocrypha: if you are spiritually, intellectually and emotionally mature, then go ahead and read them. However, be aware that such are the opinions of some scholars and may or may not be accurate in everything they write. Why? Because these are not scientific books, but are religious books - in this instance, atheism is Dawkins' religion, and he is peddling it.

Sadly, most 18 year old LDS kids are not prepared to receive such information. Their parents have not spent the time to spiritually, intellectually, and emotionally prepare them. For example, I know kids who grow up faithful, but then go off to college where they learn the earth is NOT 6000 years old, and that evolution is a fact, and given the evidence assume that all that they learned from their parents about God and Santa Claus is completely wrong. So they quit the Church.

However, smart parents allow their kids to review such concepts at an age appropriate level, and help them to understand the issues, and explain to them why they (the parents) still believe in the gospel regardless of such claims. It also helps if the parents are not clinging onto Flat Earth theories that have nothing to do with the actual Gospel, or whether God exists (Creationism, for example). It is okay to teach kids that they personally believe in Creationism, but it is not necessary to believe in God and Christ. This allows our kids the leeway to discover God for themselves, without false pathways blocking that discovery.

I joined the Church at 16. This meant I had to personally wade through the different perspectives of Apostles and Prophets, and get to the true core doctrines, and leave everything else up in the air. It would have been a shame if Elder Bruce R. McConkie's 7 Deadly Heresies speech would have driven me or any other young person away from faith in God, especially when that was his personal list, and not a Church sanctioned or doctrinal one. It took some time to come to that understanding, but when I did, it was both refreshing and a little scary (knowing prophets could also be a little fallible and opinionated).

So, what you're saying is that if someone reads a book on atheism, then leave the church, they are not "spiritually, intellectually and emotionally mature"? Also, I wouldn't call atheism a religion. Religion is defined as: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Atheism is stating that you believe there is no god. The best analogy I've heard is "Atheism is to religion as baldness is to hair color."

So, once again bringing up the point that if some 18 year old LDS kid goes to college, and learns about something different than what they learned in his school and leaves the church, they are not prepared? They just learned that what they read in the bible isn't a fact, and that the earth wasn't created in 6 days, or even 6,000 years, and that god didn't just put us here. Also, they don't just leave a biology class, just learning about evolution, and stop believing in god. They think about it, go over it in their mind. If they're like me, they have to give it a lot of time before they let go of what they have learned and studied for the past 18 years. It took me well over two years before I became a full atheist. I started to just doubt that the church was true, and believe that there was just a god, but no true organised religion. Then I became agnostic, believing that I didn't think there was enough evidence to prove if there was, or wasn't a god. Then, after a lot of thinking, pondering, and wondering, I realized that atheism was right for me, and that, if I don't believe that the bible is true, and that all of the religions are just made up, then why should I believe in god? Where is the proof that there is a god?

[imanuelga]

if I don't believe that the bible is true, and that all of the religions are just made up, then why should I believe in god? Where is the proof that there is a god?

Because could you love some one just believing this has no sense ?

If you believe that love is just the result of evolution to allow live to reproduce, That the feeling of love is an misleading of the nature, I dare you to tell your girlfriend!

I think this the profound aspiration of human is love. This come from God and trying to destroy this, is a "crime".

Yours,

Edited February 28, 2011 by imanuelga

[Backroads]

Understood. But if I go into detail about the circumstances that cast Smith's claims in a suspicious light, then this thread goes off in a different direction like a 3 stage rocket. When faithless says he left the LDS because of its teachings without going into detail, I have to assume his disagreements hark back to the original claims by which Smith started the church. Rest assured, I'm well aware of the historical nuances and when pressed can deftly articulate why I think JS is was a disreputable man. Not wanting to ignite that powder keg, I'm speaking in glossing generalities with someone who likely shares my perspective.

Fair enough. Besides, you don't strike me as the type to be judging us all as idiots who can't think for ourselves, anyway.

So, what you're saying is that if someone reads a book on atheism, then leave the church, they are not "spiritually, intellectually and emotionally mature"? Also, I wouldn't call atheism a religion. Religion is defined as: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Atheism is stating that you believe there is no god. The best analogy I've heard is "Atheism is to religion as baldness is to hair color."

Which should be the defintion of atheism. However, I've run into plenty who have a very rigid definition of how an atheist thinks, acts, and even votes.

So, once again bringing up the point that if some 18 year old LDS kid goes to college, and learns about something different than what they learned in his school and leaves the church, they are not prepared? They just learned that what they read in the bible isn't a fact, and that the earth wasn't created in 6 days, or even 6,000 years, and that god didn't just put us here. Also, they don't just leave a biology class, just learning about evolution, and stop believing in god. They think about it, go over it in their mind. If they're like me, they have to give it a lot of time before they let go of what they have learned and studied for the past 18 years. It took me well over two years before I became a full atheist. I started to just doubt that the church was true, and believe that there was just a god, but no true organised religion. Then I became agnostic, believing that I didn't think there was enough evidence to prove if there was, or wasn't a god. Then, after a lot of thinking, pondering, and wondering, I realized that atheism was right for me, and that, if I don't believe that the bible is true, and that all of the religions are just made up, then why should I believe in god? Where is the proof that there is a god?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be putting a very strict light on the experience of every Mormon. Plenty of Mormons do not believe in 6 days/6,000 years. You're also assuming that all Mormons are against evolution when plenty of them do. You seem to be saying that if a person DOES believe in evolution and science-based earth ages, it's impossible for them to be a faithful Mormon.

I do agree that most people don't change their faith or lack thereof at the drop of a hat. Any legitimate changes in belief would result from awhile of studying, thought, musing, prayer, etc.

[HiJolly]

So, what you're saying is that if someone reads a book on atheism, then leave the church, they are not "spiritually, intellectually and emotionally mature"? Also, I wouldn't call atheism a religion. Religion is defined as: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Atheism is stating that you believe there is no god. The best analogy I've heard is "Atheism is to religion as baldness is to hair color."

So, once again bringing up the point that if some 18 year old LDS kid goes to college, and learns about something different than what they learned in his school and leaves the church, they are not prepared? They just learned that what they read in the bible isn't a fact, and that the earth wasn't created in 6 days, or even 6,000 years, and that god didn't just put us here. Also, they don't just leave a biology class, just learning about evolution, and stop believing in god. They think about it, go over it in their mind. If they're like me, they have to give it a lot of time before they let go of what they have learned and studied for the past 18 years. It took me well over two years before I became a full atheist. I started to just doubt that the church was true, and believe that there was just a god, but no true organised religion. Then I became agnostic, believing that I didn't think there was enough evidence to prove if there was, or wasn't a god. Then, after a lot of thinking, pondering, and wondering, I realized that atheism was right for me, and that, if I don't believe that the bible is true, and that all of the religions are just made up, then why should I believe in god? Where is the proof that there is a god?

I don't think you have 'truth' figured out yet, faithless.

It's a big topic, but you should keep after it. Try to include emotion, consciousness & music in your definition. Just a hint.

What does it mean to say an arrow is true?

HiJolly

[slamjet]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, isn't Atheism not about the pursuit of truth, but of knowledge? Atheism leans to the scientific for understanding. And thus, by definition, science is not the search for truth, but knowledge. So Atheism is more about knowledge than truth. Because to say that something is true, it shuts down science and enters into dogma. Since truth is not so much a matter of proof, but a matter of belief.

At least that's what I've gathered from my limited knowledge on the subject.

[RipplecutBuddha]

I was always taught growing up, both by my parents and the church, that you shouldn't read books such as "The God Delusion", by Richard Dawkins, or "God is Not Great", by Christopher Hitchens. After leaving the church for personal reasons, I read both of these books. The God Delusion didn't even mention the LDS church, and God is Not Great briefly covered it, only giving a short history of it, then moved on to religion itself. Now I ask myself, why is it considered bad to read these books? It's just reading the other side of the story. Being told not to read these is like someone from a political party saying that they are right, but not to research the other party and saying that they are the wrong way to vote.

I was just a little confused by this and wanted your guy's opinion. Thanks!

The problem with anti-religion writing and the authors as well is just this; they don't have anything better to offer in exchange for your faith. Take any Christian religion....heck, any organized religion. The reason for faith is the hope that comes with that faith. When you believe something, you're hoping to be rewarded for your faith, or at the very least, you believe you will be.

What does Dawkins, Hitchens, or any other atheist have to offer you that's better? What system of unbelief leads to a happy life? With few exceptions, I have found vocal atheists/agonstics/antireligionists to be negative, critical, judgemental, and spiteful in conversations I have had with them.

I've read anti-mormon material. I've read anti-religion material. None of it does anybody any good. None of it approaches the intended subject on a level playing field. It all starts with false assumptions that quickly become unweildy.

If you are seeking truth, then accept the truth you find. It takes courage, but people do it all the time, every day.

[Guest Godless]

Because could you love some one just believing this has no sense ?

Yes, because there is plenty of meaning and purpose to be found in a world without God. Life is only meaningless and senseless if you choose it to be so.

If you believe that love is just the result of evolution to allow live to reproduce, That the feeling of love is an misleading of the nature, I dare you to tell your girlfriend!

What if my girlfriend believes the same thing?

While our emotions may be rooted in science and brain chemistry, it doesn't mean that we should disregard them. I love my girlfriend very much, and not just because I feel a biological need to reproduce. Our love is one of the things that gives my life purpose.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, isn't Atheism not about the pursuit of truth, but of knowledge? Atheism leans to the scientific for understanding. And thus, by definition, science is not the search for truth, but knowledge. So Atheism is more about knowledge than truth. Because to say that something is true, it shuts down science and enters into dogma. Since truth is not so much a matter of proof, but a matter of belief.

At least that's what I've gathered from my limited knowledge on the subject.

Atheism is a product of materialism, and I don't mean the coveting of wealth, I mean the materialism that C.S. Lewis battled against all his life. It would be worth your time to read up on Lewis's refutations of materialism in his day. An emerging mindset during the industrial revolution iwas that science is king, nothing is real unless it can be seen, weighed, and measured by calipers. With the explosion of factories, railroads probing into the most unreachable places, Darwin's evolution theory, and the pitting of reason against faith, it seemed that humanity was finally casting off the shackles of religious superstition and finally becoming master of his domain. It's really here that atheism was born and C.S. Lewis, J.R. Tolkien, and others took their stand against it defending realities that extend much further than what can be seen and felt.

I told faithless that science never leads to truth, only faith can do that. If we are like Thomas, having to see and feel the scars in Christ's body before believing, then truth will always be just beyond our grasp. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe, Jesus said to doubtful Thomas. If we're not careful, science can stop being a tool to better our lives and our understanding and start being an exercise in unbelief; a sure innoculation against truth.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Saintmichaeldefendthem1

[jayanna]

So, what you're saying is that if someone reads a book on atheism, then leave the church, they are not "spiritually, intellectually and emotionally mature"?

What I'm thinking is that is one possibility, another would be reacting from a bad experience, another would be a desire to alleviate guilt by eradicating the belief in sin, another would be a desperate attempt to understand something that seems intangible.

Where is the proof that there is a god?

Where isn't there proof?

We are more than the sum of our parts. We only use a small percentage of our brains, why would evolution create more than we use? If you stop using it, doesn't it go away, according to evolution?

Life was started by a lightning strike? Lightning strikes every day, where is the new life that it has caused? Sounds far-fetched to me. A total shot in the dark, I'm thinking. Where is the proof of this lightning strike? Where is the evidence of it? Why hasn't it happened since? Why aren't there new forms of life springing up around us as we speak?

I have more proof of my faith than I do of a lightning strike that may or may not have happened at a time that no one was there to see or measure, or even give a modern day example, or can be reproduced. We can go to the moon and back, but can't reproduce this amazing, life-giving instant. Why? Because life has to be created from life. Like mass, it has to come from somewhere, it doesn't spontaneously happen.

Why not read anti-religious materials? There was a missionary here who had been reading materials like that. He thought he would research the other side of things, to know how to respond. He read until it started to make sense, it was so reasonable to him. After all, how do we really know? He said to me one day, "There are no primary songs about what Jesus taught." He had been reading this stuff until it became reality to him. He was utterly convinced.

I sang, "I'm Trying To Be Like Jesus" He was so into that stuff, that he forgot primary songs he had been singing his whole life.

You know that saying 'you are what you eat', well, from what I've seen it should be 'you are what you read'. I see what people read all the time. What is important to us? What we read.

[Mute]

The problem with anti-religion writing and the authors as well is just this; they don't have anything better to offer in exchange for your faith. Take any Christian religion....heck, any organized religion. The reason for faith is the hope that comes with that faith. When you believe something, you're hoping to be rewarded for your faith, or at the very least, you believe you will be.

What does Dawkins, Hitchens, or any other atheist have to offer you that's better? What system of unbelief leads to a happy life? With few exceptions, I have found vocal atheists/agonstics/antireligionists to be negative, critical, judgemental, and spiteful in conversations I have had with them.

I've read anti-mormon material. I've read anti-religion material. None of it does anybody any good. None of it approaches the intended subject on a level playing field. It all starts with false assumptions that quickly become unweildy.

If you are seeking truth, then accept the truth you find. It takes courage, but people do it all the time, every day.

I would never personally try to persuade someone to not have a religion but I would say there are many things that I consider a comfort to me personally in not having a religion. In my personal opinion, being agnostic can give you a lot of peace. I'll give you an example of what I mean. My brother died in a car accident when I was very young. The roads were icy and the driver of the truck coming the opposite direction was intoxicated. The truck collided with my brother's car and as a result my brother died while the truck driver was relatively unharmed.

My mother felt bad about that day for many years later. She told me that she wanted to go with my brother that night but she couldn't find her purse. She wonders if perhaps she wasn't supposed to go or maybe it would have been prevented if she had gone. There was also the question on her mind that maybe God needed him for something. For me personally, I don't have to worry about the question of was there a divine influence involved in my brother's death. I don't have to worry about the question of did God just let my brother die? If so, should I be angry? Why didn't he save him? Did he need him for some greater work? Was my family not living righteously enough to be deserving of my brother? Was this a test? Was it punishment? Was it to help my family grow closer together?

There are countless divine factors that I could worry about and question but I find I usually get the correct answer if I leave those divine possibilities out. For one, the other driver was drunk and the roads were icy. The driver made a mistake and one that was very costly to my family and me but I have forgiven the person who ran into my brother. I do not blame God and I do not want to worry about if there was a divine influence in my brother's death. I don't feel a need to look for answers some other place when they're right there in front of me. I just accept that bad things happen sometimes and we have to make the best of it in our lives. I try to do better in the future and move on with life. So it's a load off when I don't have to worry about those things.

Many of the positive qualities people like in religions such as in Christianity can be found without having a religion. For example, you can still be just as kind and loving towards others as you were when you were religious. For most people, your morals don't simply go away. If you're a good person, chances are you will continue to be one. Many people don't try to do what is right simply because they believe a God will punish them if they don't or reward them if they do it. They do it because they feel it is a good way to live. They believe it will make them happier in this life and they feel it will make others happier. All of those beliefs of do not judge others, forgive others, etc are good because they make you happier. You don't have to have a religion in order to follow this.

I'm not trying nor would I try to persuade you to be agnostic. I'm only saying that I find positive qualities for me in being such. There were also many qualities which I found very comforting in believing in God.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Mute

[unixknight]

The trouble with reading Dawkins, and others of his ilk, is that their entire focus is on using a variety of arguments and philosophical constructs to convince you that they're smarter than 90% of the population of the planet and that you'd be well served to align with them.

All for a paycheck.

The danger in reading these books isn't that somehow they'll reveal a truth that's hidden from those of us who believe in God. The danger is that most people aren't that well equipped to really understand the arguments being presented and decide whether or not they're valid.

For example, Dawkins' central argument is that the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically, and then goes on to demonstrate this. The reader's faith is shaken by Dawkins' arguments and seeks to hear more.

$Cha-ching$.

It's a form of philosphical sleight of hand. Ever notice how Dawkins himself sets the standard of proof and then shows how religious faith fails to meet it?

Man, if I could do that I could win any argument, any time, against anyone.

Watch this:

Warhammer 40,000 is the greatest game ever devised by the mind of mortal man. I can even prove it! You see, a good game MUST include miniatures, which ideally are painted. Also, the game should include dice, to introduce a random element. There should be a tabletop and scenery for a game to be truly good, and lastly, the best game in the world should have great fluff behind it to add the feel of a storyline context to put it in.

Now, since we now know what defines a really good game, I can prove that Warhammer 40,000 satisfies this standard.

Warhammer 40,000 uses plastic or metal miniatures that are sold unassembled and unpainted, thus satisfying the first requirement. The game rules call for 6-sided dice to be thrown to determine the results of actions taken by the players. The game is played on a tabletop, with the Tournament regulation size being a 6' x 4' rectangle. Scenery like trees, buildings and hills are used to impact the strategy and actions of the players. Finally, there's a rich selection of novels and other materials providing a story context for the game.

I have thus proven that Warhammer 40,000 is better than any other game, so put away your deck of cards and Monopoly board and get out there and play some Warhammer40k, yeah!

See what I did there? I chose an arbitrary set of requirements that happen to be met by a particular subject, then used that to show how well my subject matched up with the definition. The only real challenge is getting you to accept that my definition of a great game is somehow definitive and reliable.

That's why Dawkins uses so many words like "scientific" and "reason." He's not actually using science OR reason to make his points. He's feeding you a series of logical fallacies and calling it proof. At the same time, you're supposed to accept it because, hey, you're a reasoned person!

It's been said that Dawkins comes across as an angry guy. Well I wouldn't say "angry" I'd say "derisive." People tend to accept the word of those who come across as being confident, and sneering at opponents is one way to appear confident without actually having to earn it.

"What do you mean you don't enjoy Warhammer40k? Well you can like what you want but us logical and reasonable gamers will be playing a 40k game and you can feel free to go back to that same game of Checkers you've had since you were in diapers."

So if a teacher advised you to avoid books like that I suspect it's motivated by more than just "Don't read that, it doesn't agree with my beliefs!" (Ironically, you can get that sort of mentality right from Dawkins. Ever heard him tell someone to read the Bible to check it out for themselves?)

Didn't think so.

If you have a burning desire to read that sort of drivel then by all means, there's no rule in the Church to stop you, but tread lightly and don't be too enthralled by Dawkins' motives. Dawkins gets royalties from people buying his books. The Book of Mormon is given for free.

[Guest brettlee]

Hello

The Soviet government had begun an anti-religious campaign against believers after the revolution in 1917. The elimination of all religion and its replacement with atheism supported with a materialist weltanschauung was a fundamental ideological goal of the state.

[Jamie123]

Life was started by a lightning strike? Lightning strikes every day, where is the new life that it has caused? Sounds far-fetched to me. A total shot in the dark, I'm thinking. Where is the proof of this lightning strike? Where is the evidence of it? Why hasn't it happened since? Why aren't there new forms of life springing up around us as we speak?

I don't think science has any answer to the question "How did life start?" The "lightning in a mud-puddle" thing is really a kind of a strawman, rather like "man evolved from monkeys" or (more cringe-making still) "your great grandfather was a rock!" These statements are only ever used by Kent Hovind (and people like him). To the Dawkinses and Myers they have no meaning at all.

I think there's little doubt that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life of Earth. The question for me is whether or not there is still room for God in the picture. I believe there is....

For me the disproof of materialism is not in the complexity of life - which I believe could have a materialistic explanation - but in the fact of our own conscious existence. I don't just mean our personalities. (Personality can change as a result chemical stimulus: Six glasses of wine will change your personality, as will six cups of coffee*.) But the reality of ourselves which exists beyond the "personality" level.

I first became aware of this when I was about 12, and it blew me away. (And if you don't know what I'm talking about, there are no words to explain it.) I believe this goes infinitely beyond any materialistic explanation we could devise however much science we learned. It's because of this that I don't believe the "soul" (for want of a better word) is material and could exist before death and before birth - perhaps be co-eternal with the existence of existence itself.

* Not that I'm suggesting you try the experiment.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Jamie123
Removed repetition

[rameumptom]

"I think, therefore God exists."

[RanDog1971]

Firstly, Mute. I have not read or seen anything anti-Mormon, just anti-religion. And those books were specifically mentioned to me by a BYU professor about two years ago, along with other books by those two authors. Also, I wouldn't consider Richard Dawkins to be angry. He likes to debate a lot, but that doesn't make him angry. In what I've watched with him (and believe me, it's a lot), he seems to be very calm and gentle. Even in his debates, he never yells or calls people names. Also, his career isn't religion, or even anti-religion. It's evolution. And trust me, that makes him very, very happy.

Secondly, slamjet. I wouldn't compare atheistic books to pornography. Pornography is there for guys to fill their basic sexual urges and serve only that purpose. I don't look to pornography for answers, and neither should anyone else. However, books that say there is no god aren't there to satisfy urges, they are there to try and teach people why they believe there is no god, and to give an understanding of how life and the universe came to be.

Lastly, Pam. I thank you greatly for your thoughts on as to why you personally wouldn't read them, I am not, however, asking that question. I am asking why the church doesn't want me to read them, as a member, and as to why the church is against it, not you personally.

Pornography is there for guys to fill their basic sexual urges and serve only that purpose.

That's about as sexist as comment as a person can make. So no women watch porn?

[Faithless]

What I'm thinking is that is one possibility, another would be reacting from a bad experience, another would be a desire to alleviate guilt by eradicating the belief in sin, another would be a desperate attempt to understand something that seems intangible.

Where isn't there proof?

We are more than the sum of our parts. We only use a small percentage of our brains, why would evolution create more than we use? If you stop using it, doesn't it go away, according to evolution?

Life was started by a lightning strike? Lightning strikes every day, where is the new life that it has caused? Sounds far-fetched to me. A total shot in the dark, I'm thinking. Where is the proof of this lightning strike? Where is the evidence of it? Why hasn't it happened since? Why aren't there new forms of life springing up around us as we speak?

I have more proof of my faith than I do of a lightning strike that may or may not have happened at a time that no one was there to see or measure, or even give a modern day example, or can be reproduced. We can go to the moon and back, but can't reproduce this amazing, life-giving instant. Why? Because life has to be created from life. Like mass, it has to come from somewhere, it doesn't spontaneously happen.

Wow, a lot of things to tackle here. Evolution doesn't create more than we use. We are only using a small percentage of our brain at one time. Also, if we stop using something, it doesn't go all the way away. Snakes still have what are called vestigial legs, or legs they don't use, in their bone structures. The human even has organs we don't use anymore (the appendix), teeth that were left over from our vegetarian diet (the wisdom teeth), and loads and loads of what is called "junk DNA". I'm sorry, but evolution does leave things behind.

You mentioned life being started by a lightning strike. I'm not really familiar with this "lightning strike" hypothesis, by I can assure you that evolution states that life was started by a highly energetic chemical process that produced the first replicating molecule. I do agree, however, that lightning strikes causing life are VERY far fetched. However, your comment on scientists not creating life even though we've gone to the moon and back is false.

Lastly, life did come from somewhere. It didn't come from other life, or an Intelligent Designer. Science has, can, and does prove that. Repeatedly.

[Faithless]

Hello

The Soviet government had begun an anti-religious campaign against believers after the revolution in 1917. The elimination of all religion and its replacement with atheism supported with a materialist weltanschauung was a fundamental ideological goal of the state.

And Hitler not only began, but almost completed his Christian only, anti-homosexual, Polish, Soviet, Jehovah's Witnesses and other political and religious opponents campaign. The elimination of all things imperfect was his goal. We can point out people who've done bad things all day, whether their religious or not, but it doesn't make the belief in either side worse.

[Faithless]

"I think, therefore God exists."

Explain your argument, please.

[Faithless]

Pornography is there for guys to fill their basic sexual urges and serve only that purpose.

That's about as sexist as comment as a person can make. So no women watch porn?

I agree, that was sexist of me. I promise you that I didn't mean it in that way. I was assuming everyone here knew what pornography was, and what people did with it, so I gave a basic, quick, and obviously flawed definition. The real definition is writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to stimulate sexual excitement, whether that be for male, female, or trans-gender. Thank you for pointing that out.

[Saldrin]

I say prove God doesn't exist. All things in my view say God does exist, even life itself. the Fact that ammino acids arranging in the right order to make life is mathematically impossible.

the fact that our moon is in a perfect distant to block out the disc of the sun in a total eclipse. no were else in the solar system does that happen. the fact that Earth is the exact correct distant from the sun to support life every were on it. sorry for the spelling.

[Guest Godless]

the fact that Earth is the exact correct distant from the sun to support life every were on it. sorry for the spelling.

1. The Earth is on an elliptical orbit, which means that our distance from the sun changes during the course of the year, by a factor of nearly 3 million miles.

2. Life on earth has adapted to the conditions of the planet. Life could still exist if the conditions were slightly different. In fact, they have historically been different. 10 million years ago, the earth was a much different place, and the lifeforms that inhabited it were far different from the ones we see today. As the conditions of our planet changed over time, so did the life that inhabited it.

Your remarks about our distance from the sun and the lunar eclipse are like someone marveling that milk fits perfectly into a milk jug, as if it couldn't fit anywhere else (an excellent analogy that bluejay brought up in another thread).

[Blackmarch]

I say prove God doesn't exist. All things in my view say God does exist, even life itself. the Fact that ammino acids arranging in the right order to make life is mathematically impossible.

the fact that our moon is in a perfect distant to block out the disc of the sun in a total eclipse. no were else in the solar system does that happen. the fact that Earth is the exact correct distant from the sun to support life every were on it. sorry for the spelling.

AS with black holes and quite a few other things, I wouldn't count this as "proof", i'd say it's more "evidence in support of some sort of intelligent creator" theory...

Mainly because we don't have any way to directly test that. (which is the same problem for black holes, and long term evolution)

[Saldrin]

1. The Earth is on an elliptical orbit, which means that our distance from the sun changes during the course of the year, by a factor of nearly 3 million miles.

2. Life on earth has adapted to the conditions of the planet. Life could still exist if the conditions were slightly different. In fact, they have historically been different. 10 million years ago, the earth was a much different place, and the lifeforms that inhabited it were far different from the ones we see today. As the conditions of our planet changed over time, so did the life that inhabited it.

Your remarks about our distance from the sun and the lunar eclipse are like someone marveling that milk fits perfectly into a milk jug, as if it couldn't fit anywhere else (an excellent analogy that bluejay brought up in another thread).

Sorry but what i said is spot on. in addition the scriptures are witnesses of God, and your attempted rebuttal does not prove that God does not exist.