Help from any Athiest who wants to help me see the fiction of my relgion.?

Question

Now is your chance. Please, write as clearly as possibly without dissing the things close to us. Please, show us how wrong we are. You say this is based upon fact, but you rarely give it. Now is your chance.

Note: please, try to act maturly. I am here willing to listen and would appreciate real answers.

Attack our relgion all you want (tell us how it is wrong) but don't diss it (just simply saying it is stupid)

My relgion is Antagonist. I feel myself falling dangerously towards some of one of the most ridiculed relgions- and Honestly I want someone to talk me out of it. (Mormon)

the above "my relgion is..." alright, poorly phrased. I should have answered the long way " I have a confounding and confusing belief that doesn't even cover if god exists or not. "

Why I believe in my religion: Because something pulls me. Perhaps it is like in the book "the god gene" but I honestly feel there is more out there than the physical that science can prove. I also see as many holes in Science as Relgion. Neither explain why, Science explains the how, and the reason- but no the why. Religion explains what we should do about it, and how it came to be. (Why: Why is the sky blue, no no, I get how we percieve the sky as blue, but WHY?)

Answer 1

You're so provocative. What are you going to gain? Nothing I suppose.

Answer 2

The bottom line is that there is no reason to accept the bible as any more factual than the quran or any other holy book. If you can get past accepting the bible as true, you will see that there is no other evidence that indicates the existence of any gods.

The more you learn about the natural world, the more you will realize that god is not required to explain anything. There are perfectly acceptable natural explanations.

Also, the more you think about the structure of religions, you will see that they are designed to control people. They try to control what you think, how you act, and most expect to control some of your money as well.

I would never argue that every part of religion is harmful; there are many positive aspects of them. Sense of community, charity towards the less fortunate...these are good things. But they can be achieved without religion as well.

Try to think for yourself instead of allowing others to tell you what to think, especially when it's mainly based on a 2000 year old book with unverifiable sources.

EDIT: You need to look at the origins of the Mormon religion, and understand that it is the very definition of a religious con. Joseph Smith was a con artist, and literally invented this religion out of thin air.

Answer 3

God made all the animals as they are today
- We have fossil evidence of dinosaurs, ice age critters, and all sorts of other stuff. Not just those animals that we were "given" by God. Why does the Bible not mention the Tyrannosaurus Rex or the Woolly Mammoth?
- We have fossil evidence documenting the adaptation and mutation of these creatures into the animals of today. Yesterday's Tyrannosaurus Rex is today's ostrich. Yesterday's obscure monkey-like creature is today's human being. I don't think God made everything as it is today.
(I sincerely hope I don't have to go searching google.com to -show- you this fossil evidence, as it's all over museums everywhere.)
-In the beginning, there was apparently just water, and God (according to Genesis). Well, there isn't much water in space, and we've got evidence of a big bang. There obviously wasn't just water, or else there'd be a lot more water and a lot less Universe to get lost in.
-Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no written proof of a white slave community in anything from the Egyptians. No mention in their histories anywhere. They tried to erase Nefertiti from their history, and they didn't quite manage it. I'd think if they were trying to cover up the jews and the plagues, there would still be some sort of evidence -somewhere-.
-God had Noah put all the animals on an ark, and only his family members, and after the flood they repopulated the Earth. Well, God had already killed off 90% of humanity TWICE by the time he got to Noah. By now, there would've been so many inherent genetic defaults from the inbreeding going on that all the kids would've died before reaching reproductive age. Same with the animals. We wouldn't have most of them. And you can't put carnivores and herbivores on the same boat and expect somebody NOT to eat at least one of the pair! There's like huge piles of animals gone extinct simply because their other half was eaten and Noah only had the two of each species to spare.
-Massive global flood? Evidence where?
-God turns people into pillars of salt? The human body is mostly water. To do this, God would have to evaporate all the water from our forms, but then he wouldn't have enough salt left for a pillar. Maybe a small salt shaker's worth...

These are all facts. What do you need explained to you? There are millions more facts that I could go through, but it would take forever, so tell me what you don't believe, and why, and I can explain it for you.

Answer 4

OK... Here's why I don't think God exists.

First, you have to define the term "God." The problem with most theists is that this term is a moving target.

In addition, because there is no evidence either for or against the existence of God, you cannot use deductive logic (a+b=c; therefore c-b=a). You can only reach a conclusion by inductive reasoning using the balance of evidence (90% of A is also B; C is B, so the chances are 90% that C is also A).

So to begin with, I will assert (and others may shoot this down) that the only RELEVANT definition of God states that GOD INTERVENES TO CIRCUMVENT NATURAL LAWS.

If God circumvents natural laws, then it becomes impossible to understand natural laws. All scientific findings would have to include the stipulation, "It is also possible that these results are an act of God, a miracle, thereby making our research meaningless."

However, we have been able to expand our knowledge of natural laws (evidenced by every appliance in your kitchen). Therefore, because the scientific method leads to applicable discoveries, and the likely conclusion is that God, at least the intervening kind, does not exist.

Additionally, if God is defined as all loving, all powerful, and all knowing, then it is impossible to explain suffering. Either God is not all loving (he acts sadistically), not all powerful (he cannot prevent suffering), or not all knowing (he created suffering by mistake because he didn't know the consequences of his actions). A God who is not all-loving, all-powerful or all-knowing is also not sufficient for the definition of God, because any God that fails to meet these criteria becomes bound by rules that are greater than God.

If God is bound by external rules and/or does not intervene in our existence, then God is either non-existent or irrelevant. The classic Bertrand Russell argument is that I cannot prove that a china teapot is orbiting the sun between the earth's orbit and Mars. But while I cannot prove this is not true, the evidence against it is compelling.

The evidence against God is equally compelling, and while it is not possible to prove beyond any doubt, it makes enormously more sense to live your life as if there were no God.

It is more compelling to me that humans have invented God (a) to help people deal with the pain and fear associated with death and loss, and (b) to reflect the thoughts of the ruling powers in a particular time. Humans are always searching for explanations. When none were found, it was the natural inclination to declare that the cause of the unexplained was "God" (or gods). As the faith grew, miracles (coincidences) and laws were ascribed to this Divinity, and an orthodoxy grew up around it.

Now it seems unhelpful to believe in such superstition. The only matters that aid in our ongoing well-being are work, location, health, sustenance, and pure, blind luck.

So that's why I don't believe God exists. And you know what? I'm not trying to convince you, so it's OK if you continue to believe God exists.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 5

Read about the history and creation on Mormonism. If it makes sense to you, than good luck with all that. I find it strange that God created all the species of plants and animals in the very beginning, yet every year I have to get another flu shot against a new strain of influenza. I'd like to honestly hear someone's explaination for recessive genes. Some people are born with 6 fingers and toes. Should'nt we all be born perfectly, with no abnormalities. God made us perfect, right?

Answer 6

I admire your open mindedness very much. However, it is not my desire or goal to attempt to persuade you to one side or the other. I love to inform others of what I have learned on my journey and through my research and I will point you in a direction to learn for yourself as well. I do not make the assertion that there is, without a shadow of a doubt, no 'God' however that is my personal belief. I am open to evidence to the contrary. If you are interested in learning more about atheism, religion, spirituality, etc. I recommend you read one or all of the folling books:

A History of God by Karen Armstrong
Essential Spirituality by Roger Walsh
Atheist Universe by David Mills
End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

The reason I refer you to books is because I couldn't possible present a good case myself here on Yahoo Answers without writing an entire novel here myself. Good luck!

Answer 7

the nice and cozy button is that there is not any reason to settle for the bible as from now on genuine than the quran or the different holy e book. in case you will get previous accepting the bible as real, you will see that there is not any different evidence that shows the existence of any gods. The extra you learn relating to the organic international, the extra you will understand that god isn't required to describe something. There are completely acceptable organic motives. additionally, the extra you think of relating to the form of religions, you will see that they are designed to regulate human beings. they attempt to regulate what you think of, the form you act, and maximum anticipate to regulate a number of your cash besides. i could under no circumstances argue that each and every area of religion is volatile; there are various helpful properties of them. experience of community, charity in direction of the fewer fortunate...those are sturdy issues. yet they may well be finished devoid of religion besides. attempt to think of for your self rather of permitting others to inform you what to think of, incredibly while that is especially in line with a 2000 twelve months previous e book with unverifiable components. EDIT: you may desire to seem on the origins of the Mormon faith, and understand that that's the very definition of a non secular con. Joseph Smith replaced right into a con artist, and actually invented this faith out of thin air.

Answer 8

You've heard it before....but the burden of proof isn't on the atheist. It's on the believer. If god is a reality, then religion should be able to give at least a shred of evidence.

I can't prove to you that something does not exist. Neither can you. But both of us should be able to show some kind of evidence of what actually does exist.

Answer 9

[Edit: I do not see a Wikipedia entry for your religion, so I'll assume it's a sect of Christianity. If this is not true, then an argument analogous to the one I present here works for any religion. They all make unfounded metaphysical claims and similarly ridiculous physical claims.]

Religion used to be an explanation for the mysteries of the universe, but it is not needed anymore. We know more or less how we got here (Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution), and we can demonstrate this pretty conclusively. (Here I refer you to the scientific literature--keep in mind that the likes of Behe wouldn't know science if it bit them on the behind.)

This already turns God into a God-of-the-gaps, a proposed solution to questions for which we don't yet have all of the answers. This seems appealing at first until you realize how many previous gaps have been filled and how quickly we're filling in others.

The main arguments in *favor* of a god existing are all deeply flawed, and none is taken seriously by philosophers anymore. The cosmological and ontological arguments were disposed of by Kant, and Darwin did away with the teleological. Nietzsche then demonstrated that morals do not come from religion (and especially not Christianity), and Freud showed that even the human mind follows natural rules. This is why Darwin, Nietzsche, and Freud are considered the "bearded god-killers."

Last-ditch efforts to save theistic belief fail when confronted with the ultimate rejection of Cartesian dualistic philosophy, where Descartes claimed that the human mind is a sort of 'ghost' (though he called it a soul). We now know this is not true, for many reasons.


Most of the mythology in the Bible comes from other sources, especially local legends that were popular at the time and even made their way in to older religions. Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel came from Sumerian/Akkadian sources, the second creation accound from Egyptian sources, and the first creation account from anti-Babylonian polemic. Other parts of the Bible show signs of the old Jewish religion evolving out of the dominant polytheism of the day, complete with worship of the moon and the Zodiac (with the Sabbaths and New Moons based on the lunar cycle and the tribes of Israel being based on the Zodiac).

The New Testament does not fare much better, as it mainly takes ideas from surrounding religions and also from Judaism, all accounts of Jesus's life being written a whole generation after he allegedly lived. (This would be sort of like having the first accounts of World War II coming out in the 1990s, to put it in modern terms.) Many Jesus stories are blatantly taken from the Old Testament, too, including the flight to Egypt and the temptations in the desert.


Thus we see that what the Bible does strongly claim turns out not to be true, and we have much better answers today. From a historical standpoint, from a philosophical standpoint, and from a scientific standpoint, the Bible is obsolete.


Edit: You are wrong to equate "holes in science" with "holes in religion." To a scientist, something we don't know yet is an opportunity to learn more. It's exciting. It's a way to push for betterment. A hole in our current knowledge is something we can work to fill.
But to a religionist, a hole is something to pretend doesn't exist (usually by giving it a fancy name and invoking faith). Scientists tell us to think more when we encounter something we don't know, while religionists tell us to think less. Therefore, the two are not at all the same.


You are also way off when you try to say that science doesn't answer 'why' questions (as if we don't have philosophers who cover moral issues and such). 'Why' questions are often just the result of a teleological fallacy or anthropomorphic tendancy by those who want to see some ultimate purpose where there is none. In questions of fact concerning natural (i.e. real) matters, science leads us to answers no matter whether the question is phrased in terms of 'why' or 'what.' (For a simplistic example, "Why does the sun shine?")
For the rest, we have philosophers.

Someone once said, "Philosophy is like searching for a black cat in a dark room. Metaphysics is like looking in a dark room for a black cat that isn't there. Religion is like looking in a dark room for a black cat that isn't there, and then shouting, 'Hey, I found it!'"

Answer 10

i wouldn't want to show you the "fiction" of your religion. i don't even know which religion you subscribe too. i just want you to understand how absolutly absurd it is to think that there is such a thing as "truth" and that you have discovered it. knowledge is an ever changing and growing thing. its vital to the continuing advancement of human knowledge that we hang question marks on the end of all the statements long held as true. we are all in this together.

instead of attacking your beliefs, i will explain partly why i believe in mine. i love science, like all of us, we all love science. we eagerly await new technology and medical breakthroughs. but for some reason we don't like to admit what science is telling us about ourselves and the world around us. scientists have made computers, atomic bombs, deep space telescopes, all of those advances would not have been made unless the scientific measurements and assumptions were incredibly accurate. but when observations tell us we don't exactly live in a universe desinged perfectly for us(we live in a universe perfectly tuned to make black holes, theres no known constants to alter that could make a better universe for making black holes). my study of the history of scientific advances leads me to speculate that we live in a universe where the physical laws create an inter-relation of all things, everything being connected through the fabric of the cosmos. but in the end it is just speculation. some people speculate that this universe was created by some vast intelligent being, because existance had to come from somewhere, but where did god come from? people can imagine a supreme being who exists forever and creates the cosmos, but people can't imagine that the cosmos itself exists forever? i think its because people can't directly see god as they conceive him so they can assign him powers that make this world more likely. in the end i cannot be religious, it would destroy the best part of my life, my curiousity, because without my ability to doubt it just wouldn't be the same, and for some reason i find it easier to doubt the claims made thousands of years ago than it is to doubt the scientific observations that make alot our world possible. but no matter what you believe we all must have respect for the incredible beauty found in the fact that we even get this chance to discuss such absurd things!

Answer 11

I don't see how you can ignore all of the flaws in that religion. Joseph smith said people lived on the moon. Brigham Young said they lived on the Sun. It is on the BYU web site. Journal of discourse 13. I could find it if you want, but BY said the sun had went celestial and the people had turned to gods. the moon was on it's way.

It screams false prophet to me. I think all prophets are false, but these two said a lot of things that did not "come to pass"