I'm Shocked

[yjacket]

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

I believe you are self-deluding yourself. You claim it is an evidence based belief system, yet it is a logical fallacy. You use of the word belief demonstrates as such:

Definition:

be·lief noun \bə-ˈlēf\

: a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true

: a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable

: a feeling of trust in the worth or ability of someone

Your belief system is based on the trust of other human beings and in the superiority of the flesh. I can make just as much a claim to the belief in a God as an evidence based system as you can. You personally have not verified every single bit of so-called "evidence" in science and until you do you have to rely on the trust of other human beings who are as fallible as you are. Your faith is in text-books that other fallible human beings have written. Your "evidence" is in equations, my "evidence" is seeing the hand of God in my life. One can argue back and forth about whether that is valid evidence, but the fact remains that one chooses a belief system and that one must have faith in something.

Without it one cannot conscienciously act, one would be as chimps without faith and without the ability to plan long-term.

Comparing humans to chimpanzees is not a fallacy. We are closely related.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this . . . that's like trying to compare riding a horse to a cadillac. Sure they both get you from point A to point B, they are both transportation but that's about where it ends.

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.

??? humans society ~= animal society . . . .okay got it. I think now you are just trying to argue just to argue.

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!

Over the long run it does but not always within the lifespan of one person. For example, I have terminal brain cancer I'm going to die within 1 month. If I have no belief in the hereafter, why would I not want to go to rob a bank, steal as much money as I can and have as much fun as possible?

And how did the golden rule come about? By a belief in God!

Edited November 2, 2013 by yjacket

[NeuroTypical]

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.

It's not a Mormon phenomenon, It's a human one. And it's not all mormons, just some mormons.

Folks raised athiest, or to be scientifically minded, are just as prone to this fear as anyone.

Anytime any of us close our ears to "the other side" because they're so obviously wrong, we do ourselves a disservice.

[Misshalfway]

Anytime any of us close our ears to "the other side" because they're so obviously wrong, we do ourselves a disservice.

Love it.

[Feta]

yjacket,

You need to understand the difference between belief and faith. Faith is a method of belief. You must exercise faith to obtain a belief in god, because there is no proof. If you are good at using faith as a method of belief, you can believe anything, because you do not require evidence.

I personally belief faith is not a good thing. Believing things for which there is no evidence is not a good thing.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this . . . that's like trying to compare riding a horse to a cadillac. Sure they both get you from point A to point B, they are both transportation but that's about where it ends.

Comparing chimps to humans is really easy, we are very similar genetically and anatomically. It's very obvious that we are closely related.

??? humans society ~= animal society . . . .okay got it. I think now you are just trying to argue just to argue.

You seem to think humans are somehow separate and unrelated from all other life on this planet. We are special in that we've evolved by far the most complex and powerful brains, but we are still offspring of the common ancestors that we share with all other mammals. Our societies and cultures are more complex because of the more complex brains we have.

And how did the golden rule come about? By a belief in God!

The golden rule came about by evolution. If primitive societies had not followed it, they would not have survived, and we would not be here.

[yjacket]

You need to understand the difference between belief and faith. Faith is a method of belief. You must exercise faith to obtain a belief in god, because there is no proof. If you are good at using faith as a method of belief, you can believe anything, because you do not require evidence. I personally belief faith is not a good thing. Believing things for which there is no evidence is not a good thing.

I am showing you by evidence through the dictionary what faith and belief are and yet you refuse to believe it. Here the definition of faith below:

Faith Definition:

faith

fāTH/Submit

noun

1.complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

"this restores one's faith in politicians"

synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More

antonyms: mistrust

2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine More

Your faith is based off of extreme hubris; trust in yourself, trust in leaders, trust in scientist. And I have shown evidence of what belief is through the dictionary. You claim you don't have faith yet it is impossible to live without having faith in something, whether that faith is in man, in God in your own strength it doesn't matter. You are trying to deny being human. The fact that you even try to compare human beings with the full range of society we have, creations we've made, things we feel, the way we communicate to chimps demonstrates that you want to deny the essential characteristics that make us human.

Comparing chimps to humans is really easy, we are very similar genetically and anatomically. It's very obvious that we are closely related.

Lol, about as closely related as a horse is to a car; please stop using logical fallicies to justify your position.

The golden rule came about by evolution. If primitive societies had not followed it, they would not have survived, and we would not be here.

And you who claim to live your life based upon "evidence" has evidence for this?

Show me. Come on man prove it. . .you've got no evidence for this. Which is my point exactly, you claim to live your life by evidence but you can't prove it no more than I can prove to you that there is a God.

I'm really done with this line of thinking.

However, I'd like to know what your real agenda is here? One doesn't go from being a member and 8 days ago to finding out "just today" that JS had multiple wives and being shocked about it to being an ardent atheist. In 8 days they read 2-3 books on JS his multiple wives becomes and becomes an expert on atheism . . . okay whatever . . .

I find it really ironic that a person who claims they live a "moral" life and lives by the golden rule comes to a message board under false pretenses.

[estradling75]

I think there is a correlation between this

I admit I'm not an avid scripture reader and I don't actively try to learn more about church history. I've never read D&C cover to cover and I honestly didn't know about section 132. I basically have learned what I know from what was taught in church. I knew about polygamy, but didn't realize that it was actually something that came as revelation and was practiced by church leaders and prophets. I kind of dismissed it and assumed it was just something that a few non important church members did.

With this

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.

Seems to me that you haven't really done any of the work that is required and wondering why you aren't getting the rewards

To go back to the mall parable... You had the babysitters and guides all ready to go and help you, but you saw a candy shop... and thought to yourself 'I love candy if my Father loves me then he will be at the candy store to give me candy'. So you ignore everything else your Father's instructors are trying to tell you and go there. We you get there you can't find your father and therefore assume that all the talk of your father was a lie.

Now in science there are many times an experiment will not go right... Leading them to say "That's funny" and then they investigate all the possibility of what it didn't go as they expected. Including the possibly that their expectation was wrong. That they made the wrong assumptions.

According to you in this thread you discard God because his Prophet did not match your expectation. I don't know how you set your expectations of a Prophet and God himself, but I am highly confident that it was not based on the record that claims to explain that (aka the scripture)

If you truly think you are being logical, rational, and scientific then you need to do what scientists will do when they get something weird, and challenge your underlining assumptions to see if they are really correct

Edited November 2, 2013 by estradling75

[Anddenex]

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

Both statements are false. Your first statement is evidence that you are unstudied. This is a popular cliche among atheist to feel better about the reasons why they pursue or accept a different course. Faith is far from believing something without evidence.

Atheism is still based upon faith like any other ideology or theology a person subscribes to; although, the reasons why a person may subscribe to one belief over another may differ -- it is still faith based.

Take the opportunity and time to actually study faith before parroting popular cliches about the definition of faith.

[Anddenex]

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.

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!

Since you specify you subscribe to an evidence based belief system, what evidence are you able to put forth that dolphins, bees, ants and gorillas are atheists? Remember, I am asking for evidence, not the absence of.

[Feta]

One doesn't go from being a member and 8 days ago to finding out "just today" that JS had multiple wives and being shocked about it to being an ardent atheist. In 8 days they read 2-3 books on JS his multiple wives becomes and becomes an expert on atheism . . . okay whatever . . .

I'm a fast learner.:)

You can learn a lot in a single day when you're focused.

Since you specify you subscribe to an evidence based belief system, what evidence are you able to put forth that dolphins, bees, ants and gorillas are atheists? Remember, I am asking for evidence, not the absence of.

You've got to be joking.

[bytebear]

Evidence. You can't pick and choose and be intellectually honest.

How do you account for three men who distanced themselves from Joseph Smith and left the church, but still claimed visions from angels and that the Book of Mormon was a book from God?

How can you account for doctrines that Joseph Smith incorporated that just happen to fit with historical 1st century Christianity?

How can you account for ancient linguistic patterns found in the Book of Mormon?

Faith, and more importantly a testimony from God is far more powerful than evidence because evidence is only as powerful as you let it.

[Anddenex]

You've got to be joking.

What you have accomplished is termed "stonewalling" a question. You clearly made an authoritative statement (claiming this as evidence for atheistic societies surviving) regarding the belief system of other species and insect: dolphins, ants, gorillas, etc... To make such a statement you must provide proof, evidence.

No joke. What evidence are you able to provide regarding a species belief that they are atheist? Again, you must provide evidence, not the absence thereof.

I am waiting to read about all the evidence you learned in "one day." Otherwise, it will be clear you are parroting what other atheist have said and accepting their words on "faith" which is what you claim you don't apply.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Anddenex

[Feta]

What you have accomplished is termed "stonewalling" a question. You clearly made an authoritative statement regarding the belief system of other species and insect: dolphins, ants, gorillas, etc... To make such a statement you must provide proof, evidence.

No joke. What evidence are you able to provide regarding a species belief that they are atheist? Again, you must provide evidence, not the absence thereof.

I am waiting to read about all the evidence you learned in "one day." Otherwise, it will be clear you are just parroting what other atheist have said and accepting their words on "faith" which is what you claim you don't apply.

I think stonewalling is OK when the question is ridiculous, but I admit there is no proof that other animals don't believe in god. I have read that most animals are incapable of abstract thought - a requirement for religion - but I cannot provide proof. If you think animals are capable of believing in god, you'd better start your cats on the missionary discussions.

Evidence. You can't pick and choose and be intellectually honest.

How do you account for three men who distanced themselves from Joseph Smith and left the church, but still claimed visions from angels and that the Book of Mormon was a book from God?

How can you account for doctrines that Joseph Smith incorporated that just happen to fit with historical 1st century Christianity?

How can you account for ancient linguistic patterns found in the Book of Mormon?

Faith, and more importantly a testimony from God is far more powerful than evidence because evidence is only as powerful as you let it.

How do you account for the absence of remnants of the great Jaredite, Nephite, and Lamanite civilizations?

[Backroads]

Feta, if atheism is where your beliefs lead you, fine by me.

BUT I really do think you should give this more time. All you have lately done in this thread is quote the random, senseless arguments of teenage atheists. Rather than parroting their thoughts, you should spend more than a week researching and pondering these matters.

[jerome1232]

How do you account for the absence of remnants of the great Jaredite, Nephite, and Lamanite civilizations?

Immaturity of excavation in the new world. Lack of evidence is not evidence regardless. We are still putting together things found in the old world and it's been studied much, much, much longer than the new world has.

[Feta]

Feta, if atheism is where your beliefs lead you, fine by me.

BUT I really do think you should give this more time. All you have lately done in this thread is quote the random, senseless arguments of teenage atheists. Rather than parroting their thoughts, you should spend more than a week researching and pondering these matters.

I'm very open to new information. Please let me know what's random and senseless about my arguments. I haven't talked to or read any teenage atheists, so I'm probably not parroting their thoughts.

Immaturity of excavation in the new world. Lack of evidence is not evidence regardless. We are still putting together things found in the old world and it's been studied much, much, much longer than the new world has.

Are you saying the remnants of millions of people are just buried? Forgive me for thinking that's unlikely.

[Anddenex]

I think stonewalling is OK when the question is ridiculous, but I admit there is no proof that other animals don't believe in god. I have read that most animals are incapable of abstract thought - a requirement for religion - but I cannot provide proof. If you think animals are capable of believing in god, you'd better start your cats on the missionary discussions.

How do you account for the absence of remnants of the great Jaredite, Nephite, and Lamanite civilizations?

It is evident you are young, and inexperienced. If you make a claim, it is your responsibility to back up your claim with evidence. To ask a person to verify their claim with evidence isn't ridiculous, this is called debate.

Then you do not know, and accept it merely by faith, that animals like dolphins are atheists. You simply parroted what you read or heard another atheist proclaim. Before knocking faith, and specifying you don't act in faith, make sure you don't make a statement based on faith.

Your last statement is what would be considered an ad hominem. Because of your inability to provide proof to backup your statement, your illogical fallacy, you think to mock to detour readers from the real claim. Animals are atheists, which you have no evidence for, thus you accept the argument by faith.

[jerome1232]

Are you saying the remnants of millions of people are just buried? Forgive me for thinking that's unlikely.

You are forgiven, just don't try to play it off as an evidence based belief.

[Anddenex]

I'm very open to new information. Please let me know what's random and senseless about my arguments.

For starters, "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." As you already have proven, you are unable to provide any evidence to validate your claim.

Second, faith is a belief with no evidence.

Third, Atheism is an evidence based belief system. The majority of the atheistic crowd wouldn't enjoy you specifying, defining, atheism this way. Intellectual atheist do not refer to their acceptance of evidence as a "belief" system.

EDIT: Sorry missed this one, "If you think animals are capable of believing in god, you'd better start your cats on the missionary discussions." However, although an ad hominem, I do find it humorous. I am more a dog lover, so I would first begin training my dog ( if I had a dog ) since dogs have already been able to say "

" Charity is by far the most important Christlike attribute, and beginning with "I love you" is a good start. Edited November 2, 2013 by Anddenex

[Backroads]

I'm very open to new information. Please let me know what's random and senseless about my arguments. I haven't talked to or read any teenage atheists, so I'm probably not parroting their thoughts.

You are making statements without any promise of backing them up. You are throwing out theories on plausibility without evidence. You are answering questions without questions, a classic detour and refusal to answer technique.

I don't think you are open to new information because you have refused to look at any of the sources recommended to you.

Should I get down to it? Losing one's faith in the matter of a week is a very rare thing. The ex-Mormons I personally know lost their faith (or switched to another one) over the course of months if not years. It's clear you never had strong testimony-building habits, and I worry you are embracing atheism because you are a young adult and atheism is considered trendy among that demographic.

Are you saying the remnants of millions of people are just buried? Forgive me for thinking that's unlikely.

One should consider the tiny percentage of artifacts that are lucky enough to survive the years... much of archaelogical evidence for anything is miraculous.

[Feta]

You are forgiven, just don't try to play it off as an evidence based belief.

Why not? I do not believe that the jaredites, nephites, and lamanites existed, because there is no evidence of them. How is that not evidence based?

For starters, "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." As you already have proven, you are unable to provide any evidence to validate your claim.

Second, faith is a belief with no evidence.

Third, Atheism is an evidence based belief system. The majority of the atheistic crowd wouldn't enjoy you specifying, defining, atheism this way. Intellectual atheist do not refer to their acceptance of evidence as a "belief" system.

You shouldn't require people to provide proof for things that are obvious. No one told me that cats don't believe in Jesus, it was an educated guess based on my experience with cats. The evidence suggests that not one of my pets has made a single attempt to worship Christ, despite everyone else in the household outwardly worshiping Christ. Any reasonable person would assume that my pets did not believe in god. That makes them atheists.

Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of gods. I think most atheists would agree that their disbelief comes from the lack of evidence for god. I think they would agree that the things they do believe in, they believe because of the evidence. How is that not a belief system?

[Backroads]

This all boils down to the classic problem of defining what counts as worship and what counts as evidence.

Most proofs against deity that I've seen begin with assumptions. Just like you're doing.

[Anddenex]

You shouldn't require people to provide proof for things that are obvious. No one told me that cats don't believe in Jesus, it was an educated guess based on my experience with cats. The evidence suggests that not one of my pets has made a single attempt to worship Christ, despite everyone else in the household outwardly worshiping Christ. Any reasonable person would assume that my pets did not believe in god. That makes them atheists.

Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of gods. I think most atheists would agree that their disbelief comes from the lack of evidence for god. I think they would agree that the things they do believe in, they believe because of the evidence. How is that not a belief system?

Obvious? If so obvious, why aren't you able to provide any proof. An "educated guess" is not proof.

Any reasonable person would be able to provide "evidence" as to why they claim animals and insects don't believe in God. You haven't.

This is your assumption, not evidence. Actually, most atheist, actually the intellectual ones do not use the word "belief." Those that do, are usually immature and inexperienced. They simply say, "they follow" evidence and accept the evidence that is given. They simply say "evidence" you do not have to believe in, because it is evidence. We don't believe in evidence, we accept it. Evidence is evidence despite your belief in it, or disbelief in it.

[jerome1232]

Why not? I do not believe that the jaredites, nephites, and lamanites existed, because there is no evidence of them. How is that not evidence based?

I have looked at one corner of my chair. There was no coin there. I currently have no evidence that there is a coin on my chair. Do I then have evidence that there are no coins on my chair? Is my belief that there are no coins on my chair based on evidence? Would I be justified in mocking someone who said it's plausible that there is a coin on the chair?

Edited November 2, 2013 by jerome1232

[Backroads]

A non-example is not the same thing as an example.

[Maureen]

...Maureen, you tell me: With the evidence supporting the notion that something is going on, why are some critics so unwilling to consider the possibility that Joseph's sealings didn't involve sex?

For one thing D&C 132 is written in such a way to imply that this "new and everlasting covenant" would involve plural marriages with sex involved.

The Bible indicates that Abraham, Jacob, and others of the Lord’s servants had multiple wives (see Genesis 16:1–3; 29:23–30; 30:4, 9; Judges 8:30; 1 Samuel 1:1–2). Joseph Smith asked God why He had permitted this practice and was told that God had commanded it for specific purposes. One reason given by the Lord for plural marriage is mentioned in the Book of Mormon: “If I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall [have only one wife]” (Jacob 2:30; see also v. 27).

After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831 and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates. Eventually, he and a small number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages in the early years of the Church. Those who practiced plural marriage at that time, both male and female, experienced a significant trial of their faith. The practice was so foreign to them that they needed and received personal inspiration from God to help them obey the commandment.

Polygamy (Plural Marriage)

Raising up seed would mean to be fruitful and multiply and that would involve sex. If JS was commanded to practice "plural marriage" why would he feel exempt from obeying but others were not? If "plural marriage" didn't involve sex with multiple wives and it was just supposed to mean "spiritual sealings" then why was the doctrine taught cautiously, why would sealings cause a trial of faith?

...The potential mothers were sealed to Joseph in their 20's, there's hardly any scandal there. Why is it such a big deal to you that they might not be his?

When the practice of plural marriage was started it was kept secret, probably because it would look scandalous, no matter the age of the women. And the fact that some women were already married made the secrecy understandable. And I'm of the opinion that people can have sex without the result of a pregnancy occurring. The fact that there are no known children born to JS and his other wives does not mean that sex did not happen between them.

M.