I'm Shocked

[yjacket]

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)

I see you are completely glossing over the fact that Stalin murdered 20-60 million. I guess it worked out pretty well for those people . . .

[Lakumi]

I see you are completely glossing over the fact that Stalin murdered 20-60 million. I guess it worked out pretty well for those people . . .

and religion has killed more, but its held as the force of good in our world

(though the LDS church has largely been exempt from the burning of people, killings and stoning's religions have done, past and present, so good on them. I remember talking about that to the missionaries). I do give the LDS church some respect for its rather non violent history and the fact its leaders don't live in golden castles and tell people to give more.

But I am getting off topic.

[yjacket]

and religion has killed more, but its held as the force of good in our world

Oh there is no doubt that many have killed in the name of religion; however the biggest mass murderers in history certainly didn't subscribe to the belief in a supreme being. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. in fact a significant portion of their belief system can be tied back to the "survival of the fittest" and evolution.

Like I've said, it can certainly work for individuals to be great people and be atheist, I have several friends who claim to be atheist and they are extremely good people. The nature of humans being what they are it simply cannot work for large societies as a whole for long periods of time.

Edited November 2, 2013 by yjacket

[Guest]

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.

I never said atheists don't have purpose. You stated that the WHY is not important. I'm merely saying that everybody is inclined to search for the answers to WHY. We don't all end up with the same answer.

[Leah]

and religion has killed more, but its held as the force of good in our world

(though the LDS church has largely been exempt from the burning of people, killings and stoning's religions have done, past and present, so good on them. I remember talking about that to the missionaries). I do give the LDS church some respect for its rather non violent history and the fact its leaders don't live in golden castles and tell people to give more.

But I am getting off topic.

Numbers, please.

[bytebear]

Here's a thought for the scientifically minded. At some point in human evolution, a need developed to connect to a God. Every culture throughout known civilization has had some form of religion and worship. So, we are biologically wired to believe in God. Whether that need was put there by God (an Adam event if you will), or whether it's a happenstance, the fact remains, that man and God are scientifically linked right down to our very DNA.

[Lakumi]

Numbers, please.

numbers? numbers of what? how many people that have been put to death by the Catholic church? Or in the name of the church?

I don't think anyone knows that.

Except the Vatican, and unlike the, what one instance of somewhat large scale violence in LDS church history (which, though they don't much like to talk about, they don't hide) no one really knows how many the Catholic Church alone has killed, because they do hide that stuff.

I could go on about all religions, past and present (from their beginnings til now) of them killing people in the name of God.

Religion can bring good to people, one does not have to go far to see that, but it can bring horrible terror, and one does not need to go far to see that either.

[Lakumi]

Here's a thought for the scientifically minded. At some point in human evolution, a need developed to connect to a God. Every culture throughout known civilization has had some form of religion and worship. So, we are biologically wired to believe in God. Whether that need was put there by God (an Adam event if you will), or whether it's a happenstance, the fact remains, that man and God are scientifically linked right down to our very DNA.

or by aliens (which I do believe things from another world visited earth in the far away past, influencing us) also interesting to note the extreme parallels of religions across the globe past and present

[anazagarus]

A major reason that Joseph Smith's polygamy is not a part of standard church manuals is because the fact was in doubt historically for many years because Emma insisted until her death that no polygamy had occurred. Because of this open question, the church refrained from taking a position. The historical record has now made it quite clear that Joseph Smith had many plural wives, but the lack of discussion in lesson manuals has much more to do with the church waiting to ensure they have an accurate history, than trying to hide elements of its history.

[bytebear]

A major reason that Joseph Smith's polygamy is not a part of standard church manuals is because the fact was in doubt historically for many years because Emma insisted until her death that no polygamy had occurred. Because of this open question, the church refrained from taking a position. The historical record has now made it quite clear that Joseph Smith had many plural wives, but the lack of discussion in lesson manuals has much more to do with the church waiting to ensure they have an accurate history, than trying to hide elements of its history.

This is one reason I tend to not trust the testimonies of some that they had full wife rights. The fight for assets left by the Saints was great, and it was essentially Brigham Young vs. Emma Smith. Emma eventually won, and the RLDS (Community of Christ) got the Kirtland temple and all the abandoned lands. Brigham Young used the testimony of several of Smith's wives as evidence that Smith wanted someone other than Emma to get those assets. Emma denied polygamy for years, and the RLDS denied it as well for a century.

I think the church doesn't teach it in Sunday School is because it's not relevant to the Saints today. I mean, we may end up touching on animal sacrifices in temple worship too, but should we have a whole lesson plan on something we don't do.

[bytebear]

or by aliens (which I do believe things from another world visited earth in the far away past, influencing us) also interesting to note the extreme parallels of religions across the globe past and present

Yes, his name was Jehovah, but he wasn't an alien to the world. He was the creator of it.

[Lakumi]

Yes, his name was Jehovah, but he wasn't an alien to the world. He was the creator of it.

I didn't say he was an alien

[bytebear]

I didn't say he was an alien

Well, you said someone came from another world and influenced mankind. I simply agreed.

[Lakumi]

Well, you said someone came from another world and influenced mankind. I simply agreed.

Well I assume God made other races, who's to day they didn't come here and influence us?

I honestly don't think we're the best God can do

[bytebear]

Well I assume God made other races, who's to day they didn't come here and influence us?

I honestly don't think we're the best God can do

We are made in God's image, both spiritually and physically. We are literally His children. We are his offspring, not just his creation. Mankind is uniquely Godlike.

[Lakumi]

We are made in God's image, both spiritually and physically. We are literally His children. We are his offspring, not just his creation. Mankind is uniquely Godlike.

and that's always the thing I struggle to wrap my head around...

I donno perhaps I just always assumed God had better races out there, being perfect and omnipotent, Or perhaps he does and they are different and was involved heavily with them and they became worse for it? And he decided to try something different with us?

Gotta be a reason he doesn't show himself directly to everyone.

(This is all just things I have thought of during my life, I didn't grow up with religion and always questioned it and still often do, like anything I believe in, or just read about).

[Leah]

numbers? numbers of what? how many people that have been put to death by the Catholic church? Or in the name of the church?

I don't think anyone knows that.

Except the Vatican, and unlike the, what one instance of somewhat large scale violence in LDS church history (which, though they don't much like to talk about, they don't hide) no one really knows how many the Catholic Church alone has killed, because they do hide that stuff.

I could go on about all religions, past and present (from their beginnings til now) of them killing people in the name of God.

Religion can bring good to people, one does not have to go far to see that, but it can bring horrible terror, and one does not need to go far to see that either.

You made a statement "religion has killed more" in response to a number given for deaths from another source. You made it as a statement of fact, and since it was given in response to a specific number stated. I wanted to know what the larger number is and how it is that "religion" caused these many millions of deaths that you purport to know about.

But when asked for this number that you claim to know about, you can't provide it.

When you claim to have statistics to "prove" your point, it should be easily able to provide those statistics. But now you say no one knows these numbers. If no one knows these numbers, how can you make the statement you did?

Making up "facts" to "prove" your argument, doesn't prove anything other than that you're willing to make things up to "prove" your argument.

[bytebear]

It's easy to see that non-religious dictators have killed far more than any religion.

Which Dictator Killed the Most People?

[Lakumi]

because we know about things like crusades and the inquisition and witch trials- those happened and we know they happened. I don't know where one could get those records, or if they even kept them.

but regardless even if I did give you a number it wouldn't mean anything, you'd not believe me.

I'm not going to sit here and argue with you. Even if I were to come up with a good point and facts, I'd just get ignored.

I offer up something "oh you're wrong" because I don't have centuries of exact records to back up all my claims, because I don't have all the answers to evolution.

I have plenty of questions for you that I am sure you couldn't answer.

[Just_A_Guy]

because we know about things like crusades and the inquisition and witch trials- those happened and we know they happened. I don't know where one could get those records, or if they even kept them.

The thing is, Lakumi, those specific events killed thousands or tens of thousands--sometimes, hundreds. There simply no comparison between those events and the industrial-scale killing that occurred in the twentieth century by Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot . . . (And yes, the numbers are out there. Historians have made some pretty decent estimates.)

In the last century, these five communists (or socialist, in Hitler's case) who happened to be atheists, triggered wars and ethnic cleansings that killed almost 140 million people. Christianity can't touch those kinds of numbers.

[jerome1232]

because we know about things like crusades and the inquisition and witch trials- those happened and we know they happened. I don't know where one could get those records, or if they even kept them.

but regardless even if I did give you a number it wouldn't mean anything, you'd not believe me.

I'm not going to sit here and argue with you. Even if I were to come up with a good point and facts, I'd just get ignored.

I offer up something "oh you're wrong" because I don't have centuries of exact records to back up all my claims, because I don't have all the answers to evolution.

I have plenty of questions for you that I am sure you couldn't answer.

A point to consider is that was religion the root cause of those things or was it a convenient means to an end used by people? Take away religion, do you really think you will have saved lives? Would one less cause to rally around have had that great of an impact? You could just as soon rail against nationalism, how many lives has that claimed? How many has it saved? How many lives do you suppose religious beliefs have saved? How much of the above (crusades, inquisition) were perhaps more politically motivated than religiously? I think it takes a very shallow look at history to claim that "religion has killed all of these people"

[Leah]

because we know about things like crusades and the inquisition and witch trials- those happened and we know they happened. I don't know where one could get those records, or if they even kept them.

but regardless even if I did give you a number it wouldn't mean anything, you'd not believe me.

I'm not going to sit here and argue with you. Even if I were to come up with a good point and facts, I'd just get ignored.

I offer up something "oh you're wrong" because I don't have centuries of exact records to back up all my claims, because I don't have all the answers to evolution.

I have plenty of questions for you that I am sure you couldn't answer.

Sigh.

This is how discussion boards work.

You made a statement.....a serious accusation, really......you claim to be a fact. When asked to back up your bold claim.....you have nothing and get all defensive. You sputter and claim that the numbers are out there somewhere, yet at the same time say you can't give a number because the records don't exist.

You can't have it both ways.

You made a false claim. Other posters have given facts that prove why.

Just because you want to believe something is true, doesn't mean it is. And just because I may or not be able to answer certain questions of yours, that doesn't turn your falsehood into truth.

Evolution has nothing to do with the question at hand.

[Suzie]

Perhaps, it would be useful to define what exactly is "Anti-Mormon" material? The term seems to have different connotations for members of the Church generally speaking and for purpose of research, I would like to know your views.

In a few instances, when discussing Church history such as the plural wives of Joseph Smith, how the Priesthood ban started, even asking many years ago why we do not have altars at Church anymore as we used to have in the past (a sincere question) etc my comments or questions, were not received in a positive light and I admit, THAT was surprising and it made me wonder why is it that sometimes questions or comments of this nature related to Church history are automatically assumed to be the work of Anti-Mormons and commenting or asking about them makes some members feel uncomfortable or they quick to assume that you have been reading Anti-Mormon material.

Is it that we really do not know our history? Is it that we rather not to study or know certain parts because it may not be uplifting and may lead us to doubt? Or is it that we assume automatically that the information may be a lie and because of that we don't do our own research to find the truth?

What is Anti-Mormon literature? Is it the information in itself that portraits the Church in a negative light? Is it how is presented? Is it the intention behind the dissemination of such information?

I can mention a few topics in Church history that aren't "palatable". A member of the Church who discuss about them, talks about them, researches about them, makes questions about them doesn't make him/her automatically an anti-Mormon or apostate.

Historians and members in general who have a passion for Church history can become tools in helping those traveling the road of permanent doubt. Knowing how to answer some of those questions can help a lot when "go and pray about it" and "isn't important for your salvation" doesn't cut it.

[Feta]

Perhaps, it would be useful to define what exactly is "Anti-Mormon" material? The term seems to have different connotations for members of the Church generally speaking and for purpose of research, I would like to know your views.

In a few instances, when discussing Church history such as the plural wives of Joseph Smith, how the Priesthood ban started, even asking many years ago why we do not have altars at Church anymore as we used to have in the past (a sincere question) etc my comments or questions, were not received in a positive light and I admit, THAT was surprising and it made me wonder why is it that sometimes questions or comments of this nature related to Church history are automatically assumed to be the work of Anti-Mormons and commenting or asking about them makes some members feel uncomfortable or they quick to assume that you have been reading Anti-Mormon material.

Is it that we really do not know our history? Is it that we rather not to study or know certain parts because it may not be uplifting and may lead us to doubt? Or is it that we assume automatically that the information may be a lie and because of that we don't do our own research to find the truth?

What is Anti-Mormon literature? Is it the information in itself that portraits the Church in a negative light? Is it how is presented? Is it the intention behind the dissemination of such information?

I can mention a few topics in Church history that aren't "palatable". A member of the Church who discuss about them, talks about them, researches about them, makes questions about them doesn't make him/her automatically an anti-Mormon or apostate.

Historians and members in general who have a passion for Church history can become tools in helping those traveling the road of permanent doubt. Knowing how to answer some of those questions can help a lot when "go and pray about it" and "isn't important for your salvation" doesn't cut it.

I thought about this when talking to a Mormon friend the other day. Just mentioning that there is evidence that the Book of Abraham was fabricated by Joseph Smith nearly had him plugging his ears and running!

I think those of us raised as Mormons were taught to have an unhealthy fear of all information that might not be testimony building. As if just hearing it you are committing some sin.

[Feta]

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.

Faith is believing in things there is no evidence for. Atheism is precisely the opposite of that. Atheism is an evidence based belief system.

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.

Comparing humans to chimpanzees is not a fallacy. We are closely related. Compared to most other living things on this planet, we are very similar to chimps. And no, I never said we evolved from chimps. We are branches in the same tree, though.

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?

Ancient human societies we have record of were still humans and had the necessary intelligence to create fictional gods. I think my chimp argument showed pretty well that an atheistic society can sustain itself. Lions are atheists. Dolphins are atheists. Bees are atheists. Ants are atheists. Gorillas are atheists. Wolves are atheists. All these "Societies" function quite well without a religion of any kind.

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.

Yes, humans will act in their own best interest. Acting morally (basically, following the golden rule) turns out to be in human's best interest. That's how morals evolved. Our moral sense is an evolved trait!