Anti-religion literature?


Faithless
 Share

Recommended Posts

wow... last year there was an article...dang can't remember which periodical...

Science has finally figure out why we have an appendix. Will wonders never cease?

Edit: What is the function of the human appendix? Did it once have a purpose that has since been lost? : Scientific American

That actually is really, really interesting. I read the article at it amazed me. Thank you for showing it to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Actually, there are plenty of transitory fossils showing one species becoming another. However, if you have any comments, questions, or arguments about evolution, please state them on this thread: http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/37267-evolution.html

You didn't give me any evidence that god exists, other than give me random bible verses.

Yes I did you chose to ignore it. second scriptural verses are very valid, and it was in the pearl of great price not the bible. you have yet to prove God does not exist. No there are no transitional fossils its full of gaps. evolution is debunked

Edited by Saldrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you saying it's illogical to believe in god, but it's reasonable not to?

I'm saying:

1) One can not, in the absence of evidence, logically conclude the existence or non-existence of God.

2) Logical != Reasonable

3) People do not believe in God in the absence of evidence. It's just the nature of the evidence is not scientific in nature and is highly subjective, but people aren't sitting there thinking, "I've experienced nothing to suggest the existence of a God. I think I'll believe in him.*"

* This works the other way too. From the perspective of an atheist they aren't sitting there thinking, "I've experienced all these things to suggest the existence of a God. I think I'll deny his existence."

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give this thread four more posts before it gets locked.

If it gets locked, it's because people keep trying to change the topic to evolution. Faithless has been diligent in referring such attempts to the evolution thread. I kept my comments on this very general for a reason. Stop trying to turn this into an evolution thread, people!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key is, as Dravin explained, is there is no scientific methodology to prove the existence of God. There are spiritual evidences which move many people to believe in God. Yet these are not empirical in the sense that I can just hand a telescope over to the next person and say "if you look at the moon, you'll see the canyons, craters and Sea of Tranquility".

Spiritual witnesses are sometimes hit and miss. If a person is not quite ready for the experience, and he/she prays about the Book of Mormon, he/she may not recognize or feel the Spirit. Whereas anyone looking through a telescope can see for themselves what it is pointed at.

Evolution does occur. What we cannot prove scientifically is whether God is behind evolution or not. We can show that the earth is more than 6000 years old, and in fact, Joseph Smith believed it to be billions of years old (as we now know through science). It amazes me of the LDS that insist on a young earth theory, even when the Prophet Joseph did not believe it himself!

Sadly, such beliefs become strawmen that the active atheist movement can use to debunk religion. If the earth is more than 6000 years old, then the Bible is false, and so there is no Judaeo-Christian God. Sadly, Christians set up the house of cards for them to blow over. And we shouldn't do it. Yes, there can be evolution AND God at the same time! Evolution is a theory, and an imperfect theory that is constantly updated with new data and ideas. But so far the general theory has held up very well to all kinds of tests. Meanwhile, Creationism has not, and its supporters have had to invent their own interpretation of science in order to support their ideas.

The worst part is that we teach our kids Creationism, and then when they go off to college, they learn the scientific method. All it leaves them is one way: out of religion altogether. We would do them a favor to teach them faith in God, and that perfect science and perfect faith do not disagree, but we do not have either just yet. And so we have to depend upon the scientific method to learn of the many things around us, and learn to depend on spiritual things through spiritual discernment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It amazes me of the LDS that insist on a young earth theory, even when the Prophet Joseph did not believe it himself!

Are you sure the lds faith teaches the world is only 6000 years old? I never heard that when I was at church.

Considering how virtually all faiths argue over what is to be taken literally or not in the scriptures and if the word day is indeed translated into the right word from it's original text, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if someone could just say the word day doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours but rather periods of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure the lds faith teaches the world is only 6000 years old? I never heard that when I was at church.

Considering how virtually all faiths argue over what is to be taken literally or not in the scriptures and if the word day is indeed translated into the right word from it's original text, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if someone could just say the word day doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours but rather periods of time.

The Church does not teach it, but many of its members do, including on this list. And many dead apostles have taught it, as well, including Elders McConkie, Joseph F and Joseph Fielding Smith. And given that their books basically pointed the way of belief for a couple generations of members, it is still ingrained in many who insist the earth must be only 6000 years old, otherwise one cannot have the Adam-Eve story come to fruition, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying:

1) One can not, in the absence of evidence, logically conclude the existence or non-existence of God.

2) Logical != Reasonable

3) People do not believe in God in the absence of evidence. It's just the nature of the evidence is not scientific in nature and is highly subjective, but people aren't sitting there thinking, "I've experienced nothing to suggest the existence of a God. I think I'll believe in him.*"

* This works the other way too. From the perspective of an atheist they aren't sitting there thinking, "I've experienced all these things to suggest the existence of a God. I think I'll deny his existence."

I know that people weren't just sitting there saying "I think I'll believe in a God now." I view religion in an evolutionary perspective. Religion evolved. It started with someone trying to explain the world, and evolved from there. People took ideas from other people, and changed them to fit what they wanted it to fit. Now, religion isn't under the same laws as evolution (natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, etc.) However, it did change over a long period of time leaving us with what we see today.

Some people do believe in a god in the absence of evidence. I've talked to plenty of people who, after asking them why they believe in god, come back with saying "It's just faith." Faith, by definition, is believing in something with the absence of evidence.

(Sorry, I'm kind of talking about your comment in a reverse order here) You can come to the conclusion that there is no god in the absence of evidence. I mean, technically, you should be agnostic about everything that has no evidence. There isn't any proof that dragons exist, for example. Really, we should all be agnostic about dragons; however, I do not believe in dragons, nor will I believe in dragons, until I see actual evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the topic of this thread now? I am rather lost. Is it about anti religious books or it a debate between proving evolution and Christianity?

Well, I originally wanted it to be about anti-religious books, but someone somewhere got us off topic, and now we're talking about something else. It's still a good thread (in my opinion), but the title is kind of misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure the lds faith teaches the world is only 6000 years old? I never heard that when I was at church.

Considering how virtually all faiths argue over what is to be taken literally or not in the scriptures and if the word day is indeed translated into the right word from it's original text, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if someone could just say the word day doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours but rather periods of time.

This is actually one of the many reasons I left the church. I had a Sunday school class dedicated to saying why evolution is false, and how we should all not believe in it. It really bothered me that someone who was supposed to be teaching me lessons of life was attempting (might I add poorly) to prove why a scientific theory was false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, at the risk of striking up an argument of some kind, what is it that the LDS faith believes about the Bible? What parts of it does it take literally, and what parts does it take symbolically? If you read the bible, and you happen upon a certain story, how do you know what to believe about it is true, and what isn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people do believe in a god in the absence of evidence. I've talked to plenty of people who, after asking them why they believe in god, come back with saying "It's just faith." Faith, by definition, is believing in something with the absence of evidence.

Generally people believe there is something to suggest a God. A prime example is some of the comments you've seen in this thread such as the distance of the earth from the sun. Such is not scientific evidence and their belief is an exercising of faith but from their perspective there is evidences to at the very least suggest a God if not confirm his existence in their mind. I'm talking subjective evidences not objective ones. Generally you'll at least hear something like, "It's what the Bible teaches" or some such. From a personal perspective such is evidence. I have yet to encounter anyone who believes in deity who believes there is not a single thing that suggests there is a God to them.

You can come to the conclusion that there is no god in the absence of evidence.

Certainly, but not logically without engaging in a logical fallacy. This is why I made a distinction between something being logical and something being reasonable. Logic has limitations, one such is the one displayed in argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I mean, technically, you should be agnostic about everything that has no evidence. There isn't any proof that dragons exist, for example. Really, we should all be agnostic about dragons; however, I do not believe in dragons, nor will I believe in dragons, until I see actual evidence.

Agnosticism is not concluding, logically, that something doesn't exist. What you are concluding about dragons is that given the weight of evidence you will operate under the assumption of non-existence. Which is not a logical fallacy.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is actually one of the many reasons I left the church. I had a Sunday school class dedicated to saying why evolution is false, and how we should all not believe in it. It really bothered me that someone who was supposed to be teaching me lessons of life was attempting (might I add poorly) to prove why a scientific theory was false.

That teacher shouldn't have been doing that. This isn't what normally goes on in sunday school. If you don't mind me asking, why is this one of the reasons you left lds faith? I mean is this teacher's actions one of the reasons you stopped believing in the lds faith or is it just something that annoyed you and you no longer wanted to be around?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see a conflict between evolution and creationism. Is the creation story meant to be taken literally or is it an allegorgical story to teach the lesson "God created this...." How? Perhaps God guided evolution to its outcome. There is scientific evidence that evolution does happen.

As for reading material: IMO, it matters what the reader is looking for. If he/she is looking for information about religion/ church, then anti is not where to look. If the person wants to know something of what the "other side" thinks, then reading their literature might be a good way. Personally, I don't ccare much for anti literature. It tends to be distort things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see a conflict between evolution and creationism. Is the creation story meant to be taken literally or is it an allegorgical story to teach the lesson "God created this...." How? Perhaps God guided evolution to its outcome. There is scientific evidence that evolution does happen.

As for reading material: IMO, it matters what the reader is looking for. If he/she is looking for information about religion/ church, then anti is not where to look. If the person wants to know something of what the "other side" thinks, then reading their literature might be a good way. Personally, I don't ccare much for anti literature. It tends to be distort things.

Not to mention that we have SEVERAL creation stories that conflict with each other several times.... in the literal sense, all three can't be true (unless we somehow drag quantum superposition or possibly the 'many worlds' theory into the discussion, but let's not). Also- someone correct me if i'm wrong- I don't believe the Church has EVER provided a stance on evolution and has simply said something along the lines of "leave science up to the scientists"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, at the risk of striking up an argument of some kind, what is it that the LDS faith believes about the Bible? What parts of it does it take literally, and what parts does it take symbolically? If you read the bible, and you happen upon a certain story, how do you know what to believe about it is true, and what isn't?

It's not a question of whether it's true or not. The LDS believe it is all true. However, they don't believe the Bible is perfectly translated and I happen to agree with that. A big one is the trinity. Many Christian faiths believe God the father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one physical being existing outside of time and space. When Christ said be one as my father and I are one, the lds believe he meant one in purpose. They believe they are all one in purpose but not one physically.

Can you name a specific example? I really doubt you're going to find a detailed description of everything the lds take literally in the Bible. I've asked the same thing before. I never found an answer to the question. Generally, I've found practically all lds believe things are literal like Moses parting the Red Sea. The question of was the Earth made in 6 days, I've heard a lot of lds say they believe it was in 6 periods of time but not 6 24 hour periods. You're going to have to give examples though of what you want clearer answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention that we have SEVERAL creation stories that conflict with each other several times.... in the literal sense, all three can't be true (unless we somehow drag quantum superposition or possibly the 'many worlds' theory into the discussion, but let's not). Also- someone correct me if i'm wrong- I don't believe the Church has EVER provided a stance on evolution and has simply said something along the lines of "leave science up to the scientists"

I've heard it in General Conference time & time again, especially from President Joseph Fielding Smith. Also at BYU from Pres. Packer & Elder McConkie. Evolution is evil, a deception from the devil. They were wrong, unfortunately, but it took me 25 years to figure that out.

Glad I got it straight now, but I deeply regret that so many people think that view is doctrine, since it was taught at the pulpit. I wish everyone would read the Church's definition of doctrine from 2007.

HiJolly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That teacher shouldn't have been doing that. This isn't what normally goes on in sunday school. If you don't mind me asking, why is this one of the reasons you left lds faith? I mean is this teacher's actions one of the reasons you stopped believing in the lds faith or is it just something that annoyed you and you no longer wanted to be around?

I mainly left because I felt like this faith wasn't what I wanted. If anything, it just didn't feel right. I used to go to church every week, go to seminary every school day, and follow the church's teaching. But then I started questioning things. I started asking myself why I believed in god, but couldn't come up with a legit answer. All I could think of was faith, and because everything in the world looked like it was designed by him. Everything seemed to fit together so perfectly. But, I knew then about evolution and science, which was and still is a passion of mine. For me it wasn't a leaving of the LDS faith, it was a leaving of religion in general. I looked at religion in a skeptical point of view, and it all seemed so fake to me. Even the translation of the Book of Mormon seemed like it was a scam. I already don't believe in psychics, homeopathic medicine, or chi. I look at those things and need proof of why they are true. All they can do is use human emotion to try and prove they are real, but they show no evidence. I decided I would use skeptical thinking for pretty much everything in life. To me, there was no evidence for a god. The things that people used for evidence for a god were pretty much all explainable by science.

To sum it all up, I guess I left the church because it wasn't fulfilling to me, and it didn't bring me the answers I was looking for. It didn't make me happy. It really did take me a long time to leave the church. Technically, my names are still in the records. I just haven't taken them out yet to make my mother happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see a conflict between evolution and creationism. Is the creation story meant to be taken literally or is it an allegorgical story to teach the lesson "God created this...." How? Perhaps God guided evolution to its outcome. There is scientific evidence that evolution does happen.

As for reading material: IMO, it matters what the reader is looking for. If he/she is looking for information about religion/ church, then anti is not where to look. If the person wants to know something of what the "other side" thinks, then reading their literature might be a good way. Personally, I don't ccare much for anti literature. It tends to be distort things.

It also depends on how you look at literature. I mean, technically, isn't the bible anti-atheism literature? And isn't anti-religion literature just pro-atheism literature (some, not all)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share