I'm Shocked

[Feta]

Your decision is okay. We are all here to find out the truth for ourselves and if you conclude that atheism is true, then it is what it is. But, it makes no sense. So, for you, if it is not easy, then it is not true? Atheism is true because it is easy to understand? So... rocket science is not true? How about integral calculus. Is that true? It is much harder to understand integral calculus than it is the Plan of Salvation for most folks... I don't even think my high school math teacher can rationalize integral calculus. It would be interesting what kind of mental gymnastics he'll have to go through to explain that one. It would be much easier for him to say integral calculus is not worth studying because it is a lie.

Anyway, the Spirit can't be felt unless one applies Faith. It is perfectly fine to become a non-LDS or even an atheist. But atheism proclaims for a fact that there is no God. It is a belief that There Is No God. So to come up with that conclusion, you have to KNOW that God does NOT exist. That requires evidence - the same evidence that the LDS have to show that there is a God. This is completely different from saying you don't know if God exists (agnostic)... which by virtue of you not knowing, you don't have to produce any evidence. It is much harder to provide evidence that God does not exist, than to provide evidence that He does exist... so if you're avoiding mental gymnastics, you picked the wrong camp.

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.

[Feta]

You've taken a really interesting path here, Feta.

Consider an analogy: If we were a chess club, you are a member of the club who is reevaluating membership. We suggested some books on the history and nobility of the game. Instead, you went and read some books by chess critics. One written by someone who believes checkers is a superior game, one who believes that board games in general are stupid. The books you read highlight, magnify, and in some cases just plain make up stuff about the game of chess and it's history. They cherry-pick sources, evidence, and history, pushing the best to the back, bringing the worst into the foreground, and sometimes distorting both out of shape.

If you are ever interested in why people actually like chess, our book suggestions stand.

Setting aside the analogy and coming back to reality, books are of secondary importance to one's personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I'm guessing from your comments about atheism, that you either never had one, or thought you did but realized you didn't. So, wherever your path takes you, I would suggest that you at least give the gospel a try, and seek to resolve your doubt about whether there actually is a God or not. I wish you the best of luck.

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?

[Leah]

I did not read "Rough Stone Rolling", but I read "Know Man Knows My History", and "By his Own Hand Upon Papyrus". By this time I had decided that Joseph Smith probably was not what he claimed to be. If he's not a prophet, then the church is not true.

I started wondering if there was a god at all. I read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. I realized almost everything I've seen in my life can be more easily explained without mentioning god. Sure, I can attribute a lot of things to god, but there's no need - everything makes more sense without him. I've realized I've never had an answer to a prayer. I've realized that I've felt "the spirit" while enjoying incredible music, books, and movies that are not up to church standards. Rarely did I feel that at church, and never in the temple.

I'm getting excited about atheism! There's no need to do mental gymnastics trying to explain and rationalize things.

I'm sorry, I know it doesn't make much sense to talk about this on an LDS forum.

What is it that is "exciting" about atheism? What is "exciting" about choosing to believe that there is no God? A euphoria from the (mistaken) belief that there are now no longer any "rules" or consequences for your actions?

I would argue that there are far more mental gymnastics involved in trying to explain things when you look at life and the world through the eyes of an atheist. My own personal experience was that life FINALLY made sense when I learned about the Plan of Salvation. I can tell you that - for me - life makes NO sense without God.

But it is clear that your mind was made up long before you posted, so I doubt what anyone says here will affect you. Which begs the question of why you posted in the first place. To "enlighten" us? To gleefully tell us that we are "wrong"? Isn't that just spreading the "gospel" of the religion of atheism?

[Just_A_Guy]

I could have read books more sympathetic to Joseph Smith, but they would probably would be somewhat biased as well, am I right?

Sure. I'd like to think no one here is naive enough to believe there's such a thing as an unbiased source.

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?

For my standpoint: Because the experiment in Alma 30 works. The result predicted--there, and in other scriptures like Galatians 5--was attained. Of course, like academic topics, Mormonism naturally comes easily to some people, and harder to others. And sometimes, if you don't make a subject a priority--be it math, physics, history, language, or spirituality--it just doesn't come at all.

Of course, you may come back and say "but I did make Mormonism a priority!". And I would respectfully submit that: "well, you might have made made the observance of Mormonism a priority--you may have done the outward performances like churchgoing, templegoing, Word of Wisdom compliance, chastity compliance, tithe-paying, maybe even regular scripture-reading, and so on. But I would venture to guess that you didn't make the practice of Mormonism--sincere learning and struggle and seeking revelation by faith and direct communion with Divinity--a priority. If you had, then that process of seeking knowledge would have led you to an awareness of Joseph Smith's own polygamy--and many of the other issues that are throwing you now--long before a co-worker first mentioned them to you in passing. And if you were caught by surprise by something, you would have left no stone unturned in your effort to learn the full story--you certainly would have followed up on the sources suggested to you in this thread.

I'm sorry you were humiliated in front of your co-worker. I'm sorry you found out that after all these years of "walking the walk", you've in reality barely scratched the surface of intellectual and theological Mormonism. Whatever path you choose, I wish you well.

But I hope will do us the honor of not parroting onto your new friends about how all those Mormons just don't know the truth like you do. We do know it. Some of us, I daresay, know even more about it than you do. It's just that we decided that more than one week's study was necessary before making a life-altering decision. And in that prolonged process of study and seeking, we learned things that Richard Dawkins could never tell us.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

Hi Feta,

Here's a website you may find interesting: Mormon Scholars Testify Lots of higher-degreed folks have managed to gain and keep a testimony. Take a look by specialty, there are more than a few science/math/engineering folks. I'm not an egghead at all, but you may find some of their stories interesting and relevant.

I'm just curious -- What is it that makes you believe you have a personal relationship with Christ?

It doesn't really rise to the level of controlled experiment, but my story comes fairly close. I've written about it here.

I could have read books more sympathetic to Joseph Smith, but they would probably would be somewhat biased as well, am I right?

Oh absolutely. Everyone has a bias, and anyone claiming otherwise is either blind to it, or trying to sell it to you.

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!

Oh, I certainly believe that! I started with them and FARMS a decade ago, searching out criticisms of my faith and seeing what the answers were, and if I believed the answers or not. Then I moved on to interacting with critics on message boards, and here I am.

It's interesting how we could encounter the same stuff, and have such a different reaction to it, don't you think? Here you are, teetering on the brink of athiesm after just brief introductions to certain topics, whereas I have resolved just about every single bit of outlandish history and criticism that anyone has to offer. A testimony, and a genuine impactful spiritual experience seems to make quite a difference.

I wish you well.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[yjacket]

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.

Okay, I'm going to be a little harsh here; but I'm going to call you out. If you were an actual practicing rocket science/engineer you'd know that the above is generally BS. Maybe you are a "rocket scientist" maybe you aren't but you definitely aren't in the workforce. A huge amount of engineering is the "art" of it, meaning you don't quite know exactly what will happen.

Any engineer worth his salt knows that there are basic concepts and principles that we attempt to learn and that as man's knowledge expands we gain a better understanding of how the world works. But ultimately, neither you nor I fully comprehend all the details. We can design something to what the models have predicted and then it falls apart. As humans advance we discover more truths about the world. Sometimes previous held truths are false and sometimes they are correct. Science is constantly advancing because previously held truths are modified.

So you are willing to allow science to "make mistakes" but you can't allow a prophet to "make mistakes". You can make allowances that we change mathematical models all the time but that if we go from practicing polygamy to not practicing polygamy then God doesn't exist? That's called a logical fallacy.

So regardless of what you claim about faith, you do have faith-faith in a model that some fallible human being thought up. Just like Newton's model was the standard for a long time and got replaced by Einstein, you have faith in Einstein's model or in some other model.

To claim otherwise is to make yourself a god as in I know all and know everything.

In addition, the sciences deal with things that can be repeatable experiences, i.e. a controlled environment. For life, one cannot have repeatable experiences in a control. To equate religion, human behaviors, etc. to mathematical models is the height of hubris. It is unknowable. One must have faith in something, otherwise one would become as a rock. The full outcome of our actions is unknowable and cannot be put in some mathematical model.

What religion does is that it allows a framework for human action and behavior. For example if there is no god, then there can be no morality for life has no purpose. There is nothing after this life then that means there is no inhibitor on human behavior to not maximize his pleasure in the short-run. That means if it is in my best-interest to murder someone, I should to it because I might die tomorrow and since nothing comes after this life who cares how I behave ultimately!

Finally, I'm am coming to believe that this thread was started under false pretenses. 7 days ago you came on the forum having "just learned today" about multiple wives. So in 7 days you went from "just learning today" about multiple wives to reading 2-3 books on JS and polygamy to being atheist?

Color me skeptical. That's a big change in 7 days, especially considering you won't read other books that give a different viewpoint. And anyone who claims to know a lot about being a rocket scientist would do well to study such a momentous change in philosophy a little bit more than just after 7 days.

Edited November 1, 2013 by yjacket

[Guest]

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.

Not true. Take a pencil in your hand. Now, release the pencil. What happens? It falls to the ground. Every single time. WHY? So some old scientist dude comes up with an explanation. It is pulled by gravity to the center of the earth. Gravity. Not little green men. Gravity. Is that fact? Nope. It is merely an explanation provided by some scientific genius. And this explanation is used to launch a rocketship. So, that dude on that rocketship is exercising FAITH on some old science dude that this is true so much so that he is willing to put himself in a tin can to be shot to the moon. Does he know for sure he can break orbital space and not get flung into the sun? NOPE. He didn't know until they sent the dude up there. It just so happens that you, for some reason, trust this old science dude regardless of whether you understand gravitational theory or not. You chose to not believe in the little green men living in the center of the earth that can pull pencils at the acceleration rate of 9.8m/s-squared because, for you, the dude promoting the explanation of little green men just doesn't seem trustworthy. Besides, he sounds like a kook and not some scholarly guy who can whip out mathematical gibberish on a blackboard (regardless of whether you can read gibberish).

This is the exact same for religion. You plant a seed and water it. What happens? It grows into a plant. All the time. Some old philosopher dude says that this is because God created the seed and designed it to become a plant to use for food and enjoyment for both man and beasts. But, for some reason, you don't trust this old philosopher dude. Because you don't see God? Well, you don't see gravity either... But... what if the old science dude who said gravity pulls pencils would have said the plant grows because God created it to do so... would you believe him? Why not? You believed in gravity... Isaac Newton, by the way, believes that God is the master creator of the universe. Direct quote from wiki: "Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation".

Chew on that for a while.

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.

Just because something doesn't make sense doesn't mean that it is not true.

And that is EXACTLY what the Book of Mormon tells you to do. Go study and run tests and verify it. You don't have to do mental gymnastics. You just have to read a book.

Now, when you run a science experiment, you FIRST have to have a hypothesis. You have to exercise a certain amount of faith to say that something is true or not true. You can't run an experiment without first establishing this assumption. It is then AFTER you established a hypothesis that you can then create methodology, do research, and run an experiment to see if your hypothesis is correct. If you can't prove that the hypothesis is NOT true, then you can't say that the hypothesis is wrong. If you did not follow the proper methodology to run the experiment, your experiment is not valid.

This is the EXACT same way to determine if God exists and if the gospel of Christ is true. EXACT SAME. You start with a hypothesis... I believe that ____ is true. The cool thing is the methodology is already laid out for you. Live your life under the assumption that ___ is true following the exact methodology laid out in the gospel. And see if you get the promised results.

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.

There is no evidence for a No God either. That's the irony of atheism. Agnostics do not refuse to make a decision. They just can't find evidence enough to make that decision one way or the other. So, they take the position that they simply do not know. That's a logical position to take.

You think all the answers to math is there. Sure. The WHAT of it. The WHY of it is not there. It is all assumed to be there. And that's where religion comes in. The WHAT of things is everywhere... like Newton said - the magnificent beauty all around us. Now, the WHY of it is what religion provides that science can't... or it tries to explain WHY using a lot of possible theories which people including Newton can accept or discard according to their own experiments.

I have applied the principles of the gospel following the methodology laid out in the scriptures. I received consistent results. Therefore, I believe that the gospel is true. No, I can't make you believe the same thing. Your journey is your own and you will need to run your own experiments.

Edited November 1, 2013 by anatess

[Windseeker]

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.

The existence of Atheism is God's greatest Far Side joke.

As Alma put it "All Things Denote There Is a God". The very fact we can simply ignore all the screaming evidence surrounding us at this very moment, including our very own consciousness, is the pinnacle of humor.

God has given us some help in that every door science unlocks leads to 1,000 more mystery doors, and still the basic questions, the most important questions remain unanswered until we turn to him.

I don't deny that life would be simpler if we put the questions and answers to rest and just went about being. God certainly adds much more complexity to our lives. But what is life, if we are not searching for purpose? The small purposes (food,love,work,joy) will eventually lead to the large one (life/death/existence) and it will be answered in the end, whether we seek it or not.

[estradling75]

Not true. Take a pencil in your hand. Now, release the pencil. What happens? It falls to the ground. Every single time. WHY? So some old scientist dude comes up with an explanation. It is pulled by gravity to the center of the earth. Gravity. Not little green men. Gravity. Is that fact? Nope. It is merely an explanation provided by some scientific genius. And this explanation is used to launch a rocketship. So, that dude on that rocketship is exercising FAITH on some old science dude that this is true so much so that he is willing to put himself in a tin can to be shot to the moon. Does he know for sure he can break orbital space and not get flung into the sun? NOPE. He didn't know until they sent the dude up there. It just so happens that you, for some reason, trust this old science dude regardless of whether you understand gravitational theory or not. You chose to not believe in the little green men living in the center of the earth that can pull pencils at the acceleration rate of 9.8m/s-squared because, for you, the dude promoting the explanation of little green men just doesn't seem trustworthy. Besides, he sounds like a kook and not some scholarly guy who can whip out mathematical gibberish on a blackboard (regardless of whether you can read gibberish).

Also note all that beautiful math and testing and experiments that try to describe gravity have failed when looking out at the Universe. The observed Universe and the gravity models of the Universe are so far off that they had to put forward a Dark Matter/Dark Energy to make up the difference. That is 95% of the known Universe is undetectable. And yet in spite of this somehow having faith in God is what makes a person unreasonable and irrational

[Feta]

It doesn't really rise to the level of controlled experiment, but my story comes fairly close. I've written about it here.

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.

[Guest]

Except by that analogy, I would have sent babysitters and teachers and others to teach and lead my child, along with instructions and people to come and tell him where I am and how to find me.

[Feta]

Except by that analogy, I would have sent babysitters and teachers and others to teach and lead my child, along with instructions and people to come and tell him where I am and how to find me.

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.

[Guest]

I completely disagree with you, and look forward to the day when I'm reunited with my Father and I can hug him.

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

Touché.

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 don't quite agree with that. They've said if you do certain things and desire certain things, and are prepared to give everything to find Him, then you get a witness that "grows" (Alma 30), becoming "brighter and brighter, until the perfect day" (D&C 50). Sort of like--to go back to your analogy--your kid has the babysitters and the maps to know how to find you, but he's gotta take out the earbuds from his iPod and put down at popsicle and focus on what he's been given.

I would rather see god. It would be very easy to believe he was there if I did.

It's possible; but it comes at the end of the process--not at the beginning.

You're being trained to be a god. Part of that training involves showing your Father (and yourself) what your true character is--what you will do when you think maybe no one's looking over your shoulder.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

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.

I guarantee you He has, you've just got to see it.

No one has told us where god is and how to find him.

For ages individuals (prophets) have told us where and how. Let him that has ears hear.

I believe a lot of what you are going through is a product of our modern society. Life for us compared to 100 years ago is extremely easy, especially here in the US. We don't have to worry about starvation and even our worst recessions are 10x better than most of the world. And yet if one tracked the belief in God those in worse situations have a greater belief than those in better situations. The old saying goes there are no "aethists in foxholes"

In general terms, those who live in dire circumstances don't question why do bad things happen to me, why is there suffering in life. They accept it as a part of life and God gives meaning and purpose to it all. What is the purpose of living if it means nothing?

A faith in God, provides all human beings with Hope, without which we would be lost. Hope in a better tomorrow, hope that my mistakes and sins will be washed away, hope that there is a higher power who loves me who created me.

The older I get, the more I see the twists, turns, and frailties of life as opportunities for me to grow, to become a better individual. The times I've most grown is when I've gone through Hell. And in those times there has been only One individual who has lived on this earth who knows what my Hell is like; Jesus.

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?

You don't understand the atonement. Our goal is to become like our Father, to inherit his kingdom. But He can't "make" or "force" us to be good. He provides the rules of how we should behave and act to be like him. Yet He knows that it's a process. We can't just wake up one day and say "ah I'm now a rocket scientist". We have to study, and we get problems wrong. It is when we answer problems incorrectly that we learn the most.

The Atonement allows us to answer the problems of live incorrectly! It allows us to fail, make corrections and then to get it right. God is God because he obeys certain universal truths and laws. Even God can't change those laws, they just are; and if we ever want to be like Him then we have to learn how to obey them too.

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.

Actually it depends. When children are small you do and I'm positive God did so before we lived here we were "small". When your child is no longer small you don't tell them exactly what to do, you provide them with the framework and then allow them to make their own choices.

If you saw God in this life and then directly disobeyed Him, you would be under much greater condemnation. Think of it this way, your parents teach you not to fight with your siblings. If your Mom says hey don't hit your sister and you do it while she is looking, you are in hot water.

Now if your Mom has taught you not to hit and then you are outside playing and you hit your sister, you'll still get punished but not quite as severly as if she was looking right at you.

In one case, it is a complete act of defiance, in the other case it is an act of not obeying.

Edited November 1, 2013 by yjacket

[Feta]

Not true. Take a pencil in your hand. Now, release the pencil. What happens? It falls to the ground. Every single time. WHY? So some old scientist dude comes up with an explanation. It is pulled by gravity to the center of the earth. Gravity. Not little green men. Gravity. Is that fact? Nope. It is merely an explanation provided by some scientific genius. And this explanation is used to launch a rocketship. So, that dude on that rocketship is exercising FAITH on some old science dude that this is true so much so that he is willing to put himself in a tin can to be shot to the moon. Does he know for sure he can break orbital space and not get flung into the sun? NOPE. He didn't know until they sent the dude up there. It just so happens that you, for some reason, trust this old science dude regardless of whether you understand gravitational theory or not. You chose to not believe in the little green men living in the center of the earth that can pull pencils at the acceleration rate of 9.8m/s-squared because, for you, the dude promoting the explanation of little green men just doesn't seem trustworthy. Besides, he sounds like a kook and not some scholarly guy who can whip out mathematical gibberish on a blackboard (regardless of whether you can read gibberish).

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.

Isaac Newton, by the way, believes that God is the master creator of the universe. Direct quote from wiki: "Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation".

Chew on that for a while.

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.

Just because something doesn't make sense doesn't mean that it is not true.

And that is EXACTLY what the Book of Mormon tells you to do. Go study and run tests and verify it. You don't have to do mental gymnastics. You just have to read a book.

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.

There is no evidence for a No God either. That's the irony of atheism. Agnostics do not refuse to make a decision. They just can't find evidence enough to make that decision one way or the other. So, they take the position that they simply do not know. That's a logical position to take.

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.

You think all the answers to math is there. Sure. The WHAT of it. The WHY of it is not there. It is all assumed to be there. And that's where religion comes in. The WHAT of things is everywhere... like Newton said - the magnificent beauty all around us. Now, the WHY of it is what religion provides that science can't... or it tries to explain WHY using a lot of possible theories which people including Newton can accept or discard according to their own experiments.

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.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Feta

[jerome1232]

Anyone who has felt the Spirit of God, myself included, would tell you he is definitely not ignoring our calls. Some children are too busy with their distractions to hear their parents calls. Some children are so sure that they are correct, that they ignore their parents advice. The reasons children don't hear their parents vary but we adults do the same thing to our Father in heaven far to often

Sometimes I see my child stumble, ignore my advice, or not even hear me when he's caught up in excitement and I think "Wow, God is watching me do the same thing, how often do I not heed his voice? How often do I set out on my determined course knowing full well what advice He has given me?"

Those moments cause me a great amount of introspection. While He might not actually be physically there yelling at me not to climb up on the spiritual "Hot stove" I can often look back and realize I knew exactly what I was doing, and I knew God didn't want me doing it.

Those are just my rough thoughts on the analogy.

[yjacket]

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.

You are conflating math with theory. Math does not explain why we are here. No one has been alive during the past several million years and therefore no one really knows what happened. Evolution, just as much as math doesn't explain consciousness. Math cannot be used to predict every detail of life. It is unknowable. Math can be used to model things, but it is just that a model. Just like a model airplane isn't a real airplane a model of the universe isn't the universe. It is an attempt to explain the unknowable.

Evolution is just one attempt at understanding how we came to be here, but the theory of evolution doesn't disprove God.

[Guest]

We don't need to explain why.

Yes we do. Why are we here? Is an age old question that everybody goes through at one point in their lives. It gives their life meaning and purpose.

The sad thing is a lot of people don't ask the question until they get diagnosed with terminal cancer... so they live the rest of their lives regretting their wasted years.

And about Vishnu. I don't believe there is no Vishnu. My friend and I were just talking about him and God the other day. We concluded that they may be the same thing, she just has a different perspective of the Almighty Parameshwara based from what her parents taught her as a child.

Part of the reason I converted to LDS is because it teaches about the Light of Christ. So that, everyone - including those who follow Vishnu - are influenced to seek what is good and praiseworthy through this Light. Everyone is connected - atheists, hindu, buddhists, jews, christians, agnostics... everyone is connected through this Light. And it is this Light that compels everyone of us to search for the reason Why.

[Feta]

Yes we do. Why are we here? Is an age old question that everybody goes through at one point in their lives. It gives their life meaning and purpose.

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.

[yjacket]

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.

Sure you can; however being atheist doesn't provide a sustainable path for humanity. If everyone were atheist then the question of what is moral is irrelevant. You can be a "moral" atheist because the culture you live has a moral background. The moral background came from religion. If everyone were atheist you can't teach your kids to be "moral".

Moral definition:

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.

2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.

3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.

4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.

6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

Without religion, who is to say what is good or what is bad. In fact #6. is the anti-thesis of atheism.

And that is the point, whether one admits it or not atheism is a religion.

Edited November 1, 2013 by yjacket

[Feta]

Sure you can; however being atheist doesn't provide a sustainable path for humanity. If everyone were atheist then the question of what is moral is irrelevant. You can be a "moral" atheist because the culture you live has a moral background. The moral background came from religion. If everyone were atheist you can't teach your kids to be "moral".

Moral definition:

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.

2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.

3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.

4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.

6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

Without religion, who is to say what is good or what is bad. In fact #6. is the anti-thesis of atheism.

And that is the point, whether one admits it or not atheism is a religion.

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!

[Lakumi]

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!

Chimps take Monkey-Horus very seriously!

And no atheism isn't a religion, the definition of a religion is a belief in a higher power, atheism is a belief.

I don't think humans are alone in the universe, and I certainly don't think we're all that special in the grand scheme of things.

And, as I wondered as a child, why would a perfect creator take the form of a weak race like us?

I can die by drinking a puddle- I donno, rereading my journal I wrote down so many things and still ponder them to this day.

[yjacket]

Atheism is absolutely not a religion. That makes no sense.

Full Definition of RELIGION

1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Being atheist is a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Faith in no God. So according to #4 atheism can easily be classified as a religion.

Imagine a group of chimpanzees. . . .

you are comparing the human race, which has developed speech, computers, traveled to the moon, etc. with chimpanzees. . . . I believe your argument is one of those logical fallacies, but okay whatever floats your boat.

And chimps do a lot of things that are deplorable, infanticide??

No one knows that chimps evolved into humans. No one saw it happen, there is evidence of various skeletons that look different compared to modern day humans. So someone developed a theory that humans evolved from chimps. You believe this theory. Why do you believe this theory? It is not proven, in fact it can not be proven. If that isn't faith or religion then I'm not sure what is.

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?

No, I can't. Do you have any examples of ancient societies that did not believe in some type of God(s) and have sustained themselves over large periods of time?

All of the great civilizations in the history of the world had some basis of belief and faith in (one or more) supreme beings. A society full of atheists cannot logically survive. The reason it cannot survive is because humans beings all inherently act in their own best interest, and that will eventually devolve into might makes right. Atheism devolves into hubris. Anyone who claims they believe in science but doesn't have a belief system, but doesn't have faith is self-deluding. That is why I say you as an individual can absolutely be atheists and be moral; it cannot work for civilizations over long periods of time.

That type of behavior will eventually devolve (not evolve) into societies resembling chimpanzees.

Edited November 1, 2013 by yjacket

[Lakumi]

actually chimps never evolved into humans because chimps are still here, we broke off from the same root creature but evolved in different ways

humans do some pretty terrible things too (worse then chimps)

and while evolution isn't as 100% as we'd like (mind you very few sciences really are since humans are constantly coming to understand things better) there is more proof of it then a perfect-divine creator.

The USSR did pretty well for many decades until they made some poor economic decisions and they were a religion-free society (more so in its earlier decades then its later ones)