I'm over believing in the Morg but have a lot of cog diss. when those who leave mormonism continue to believe in the Bible or other Christian religions. Can any of you who still believe enlighten me on your beliefs (just curious---not challenging your beliefs)

It's a quest, really. You will stop when you stop along the trail.

I stayed Christian for a time after Mormonism. However, I could not turn off the detective skills I had acquired while investigating Mormonism.

I suggest you take your time and your belief will gel for you. Don't go based on what other people believe or don't believe. Go by your own quest, research, and emotional needs. Sometimes belief is a way to express wonder of the universe and not have to deal with being mortal.

Hit the books! It's all in the books. It always has been for anyone who wants to find what humans can know.

Age of Reason by Thomas Paine: short and sweet. Get the skinny on the Bible from Paine.

Demon Haunted World by Sagan. Find out how you will decide for yourself what to believe.

Hero's Journey by Campbell. See the role and importance of mythology in your life.

Consider this. You know just as much about God as anyone else. Think long and hard before you default your views to someone else. Evaluate why people would allow someone at a pulpit to tell others what to believe and what a God wants everyone to do.

I left christianity before I left mormonism. I researched the origins of christianity and became convinced by the evidence that the person of christ is really just a myth created from the other countless godman/savoir myths that floated around the area for thousands of years. Once I realized that nothing the christ story was original or true it became obvious that mormonism must also be false. So now I'm a proud and happy atheist.

But really this is a very personal journey and each person arrives at their destination in their own way.

"Countless god-man savior myths floating around for thousands of years..." I read about these too. I also read that the ten commandments from the Old Testament are similar to eight wise suggestions from the Buddha. And how fascinating that the Christians adopted Christmas, Easter and others to coincide with many wiccan holidays around the solstices.

Seeing the falsehoods in Christianity were baby-steps in helping me see the falsehoods in mormonism. Mormonism was the last Christian sect I was able to keep my faith in, and that probably because I was born into it. For a long time mormonism was the only Christian sect that could possibly be true, and when I lost my faith in it I set out on a fast road to atheism.

I think that one reason so many ex-mos become atheists is that in some ways, Mormonism is more closely related to atheism than it is to traditional Christianity. Specifically, Mormon theology precludes the reason-based arguments for God's existence that form part of the basis of traditional Christianity, as explained here:

http://www.catholicscience.com/deepsoftime/2011/02/06/reason-mormonism-and-atheism/

This isn't surprising in light of Mormon origins. In setting up his religion, Joseph Smith used elements of the forms of religious skepticism and innovation that were popular in his time, including deism of the type that was accepted by Thomas Jefferson; humanism of the type that became popular during the French Revolution; materialism of the type that Karl Marx was developing; scientism of the type popularized by Thomas Dick; and the sort of atheism that Thomas Paine advocated. From the standpoint of traditional Christianity, Mormonism is about halfway atheist already.

If you can tell us just one reason-based argument for God's existence it will be a first.

I'm waiting.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you can tell us just one reason-based argument
> for God's existence it will be a first.
>
> I'm waiting.


Are you saying you've actually never heard any of the plethora of historic arguments for God, or are you dismissing them all because you disagree with them? If it's the latter, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but your disagreement with an argument does not render it unreasonable. In fact your complete dismissal of counter arguments points to your own lack of reason.

It's fine to disagree with an argument and reach a different conclusion, but many historical arguments for the existence of God are the essence of reason-based argumentation. It's impossible to take a college-level logic and argumentation course without using the historic arguments for the existence of God as a guideline for reasoned argumentation.

Would you care to give us your explanation for "Why is there something rather than nothing?" without resorting to redefining "nothing" into a quantum explanation like Hawking and Krauss? It's a difficult question to answer without looking for answers outside the natural world. Most of science still embraces the axiom, "Matter cannot be created or destroyed," but yet it exists. How did it come to exist?

This is why I have great respect for agnostics who grapple with this, but find many hard-core atheists to actually just be people who dislike religion and have very little philosophical or intellectual backing for their atheism.

How did God come to exist?

The existence of God doesn't resolve your primary premise, turtles all the way down...

bc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How did God come to exist?
>
> The existence of God doesn't resolve your primary
> premise, turtles all the way down...


Answering a question with a question is no answer at all. I accept your response that you cannot answer the question I posed.

OK, let me state it more directly.

The existence of God does not provide a solution to "Where does matter come from?"

Therefore asking that question in no way provides evidence for the existence of God.

You are correct that I do not know where matter comes from. However, you have failed to explain why that is germane to showing it as evidence for the existence of god. Logically speaking it is a red herring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Also by your own criteria the question you ask has no validity in the discussion because it is a question.

P.s:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,675492



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2012 08:08PM by bc.

bc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


>
> Also by your own criteria the question you ask has
> no validity in the discussion because it is a
> question.
>
> P.s:
> http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,675492

The original question was obviously crafted by minds greater than ours. It does not include any mention of God or other creative force, but rather asks for a reasoned examination of the origin of matter.

The problem, of course, is that there is no _reasonable_ explanation for the existence of matter. Science cannot account for it. It indicates there is a supernatural force at work here. I'm using the dictionary definition of "supernatural:" "some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

So we are left to choose exactly what supernatural force was at work.

As the kalam cosmological argument states,

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

When the answer to this question turns to God, the "turtles all the way down" becomes a logical fallacy. It assumes that God had a beginning, but that is an unproven premise. Any argument that starts with an unproven premise cannot be defended. With almost no exception theists reject the premise that God had a beginning, and since you cannot prove the God we suggest had a beginning, it renders useless the "turtles all the way down" argument.

In a world where everything that can be observed has a beginning, you cannot reply to the question, "Where did this all begin?" by arguing that everything has a beginning. That's not a reasonable response. At best, it attempts to divert attention away from the original question. It does nothing to answer the question. If your goal is to quiet down theists, it may have some effect, but it does not step into the actual conversation over the origin of matter.

You do not answer an argument or provide an explanation for anything by simply offering an attack of a counter argument. That's why the question is never posed, "Can you defeat my belief that God created matter?" It's a broader question you have yet to address: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" We can both agree that matter was not created by an endless chain of gods. Now what?

It's virtually impossible to view the existence of matter as anything other than an anomaly requiring a similarly anomalous explanation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2012 09:07PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Your B.S. evasions haven't given any evidence for the existance of god.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your B.S. evasions haven't given any evidence for
> the existance of god.


Thank you Dave for your input. It's nice to know we can always count on you for a well-reasoned and cogent explanation of your position.

LOL. Don't hold your breath.

looks like you cannot back up your bogus assertions.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> looks like you cannot back up your bogus
> assertions.

Dave, "why is there something rather than nothing?"

this evasive statement does not give any evidence of a god.
You made the assertion, you back it up.

I'm disappointed you resorted to kalam which even Ray Comfort won't even touch anymore... It's not a good look for your fellow theists.

The "historic" arguments actually seem to contract themselves. Some talk about multiple gods, some of spirits in rocks, leaders assenting to be gods, leaders that are gods. Studding the history of Gods seems to be more of an argument against gods and for the idea that gods are a creation of man.

Holy cow, you guys! I didn't mean to set anyone off.

Dave, in response to your question about the reason-based arguments for God, there are essentially three: the ontological argument (God's existence is necessary as the underlying basis of reality), the cosmological argument (as the only uncreated being, God is necessary as the First Cause of everything else that exists; this is the argument that the Tall Man with Short Hair refers to, and is generally thought of as the best argument of the three), and the design argument (the existence of complex designs suggests the existence of a Designer; please note that this has virtually nothing to do with the proponents of Intelligent Design as a euphemism for anti-evolutionism).

Also, please note that these are philosophical ARGUMENTS for God's existence, not scientific PROOFS of God's existence. Scientific proof relies on testable, observable, material evidence. I do not believe that it is possible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God, simply because it is not possible to design a scientific test for it. In this respect, God can be said to share the transcendent qualities of love, beauty, and truth, which are similarly not subject to scientific verification but are nevertheless perceived by most people to be very real.

Now just simmer down, everyone!

Lol, I can always tell when it's a full moon around here. Intriguing debate, I must say...

I know a lot of people have read Dawkins' "The God Delusion". I haven't picked it up recently, but I did read it a few years ago.

These types of conversations have me wondering if anybody has also read John Lennox's "God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?"

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertaker-Has-Science-Buried/dp/0745953719

I particularly think the review posted by Prof. Nigel Cutland captures the book well.

beautiful Dagny, thxs

There are many views of God out there and not all Christians take the Bible literally so it is much easier to believe. Besides not everyone reasoned their way out of Mormonism.

I'm over believing in the Morg but have a lot of cog diss. when those who leave mormonism continue to believe in the Bible or other Christian religions. Can any of you who still believe enlighten me on your beliefs (just curious---not challenging your beliefs)


Hmm. Boundaries? YOU have dear "cog diss" -- or you worry others have dear "cog diss"? (So good of you to be concerned about their mental health!) Or what is the question?

First of all, not everyone in the world is literal, lumbering, and heavy-handed about their beliefs. Many take their belief structure as symbolic and with a grain of salt. And few religions are like Mormonism. That should ease your mind. I took in a service at a local Episcopal Church were the motto is "We take the Bible seriously but not literally."

That said, here are a few other cases of "cog diss" for you to worry about.

A famous ex-Mormon's Facebook page revels in all the racism and sexism of the right. In fact, this quite famous ex-Mormon himself obviously gets his talking points from right wing extremists. Never mind they have been proved to be as racist, sexist, and dishonest as the Mormon Church.


After criticizing religions roundly for sexism, atheism is now having its own troubles with women reporting being sexually harrassed and even receiving rape and death threats. One atheist woman stopped speaking in public because atheist men wouldn't stop making jokes about her boobs. (Long story. Boring story.)

Doesn't the "cog diss" of all that just keep you up at night?

Or not so much?

Maybe you started with a Freudian slip. Maybe in the end it is your own "cog diss" that does worry you...

I think "cog diss" is lot like your "sin." Keep your eyes on your own paper. Worry about your own -- not someone else's.

My Christian faith never changed. Despite being a member of the LDS church for 32 years, I never believed in the doctrines but continued in my prior beliefs. Also, I did not take the Bible literally and so have no cog-dis with my beliefs. I read Paine when I was a pre-teen and had already noted passages which made acceptance of a literal interpretation of the Bible impossible but does not prevent my beliefs in Christ as Savior, etc. The LDS church is the only one with the need to believe in such things as the Tower of Babel being literal. Of course some fundamentalist Christians also believe that and believe in a literal Garden of Eden, etc. But only mormons believe not only in a literal Garden of Eden but that it was in Missouri! But belief in man as being both good and evil and needing help in being forgiven, is filled by belief in the atonement and in God, having been in Christ, being a loving God and merciful, is a belief system which is fulfilling.

The idea of an identity based on sin is the foundation of Christianity. The hymns continually reinforce the unworthiness of the individual, the "natural man is an enemy of God," all for the purpose of stimulating a need for the ministry, the sacraments, the application of the atonement, i.e., the perpetuation of an organization.

Since we all feel normal guilt from our own consciences, this is magnified and exaggerated to promote the powerful position of church authorities.

Personally, I left Mormonism for mixed reasons, part their terrible cruel behavior, part their obvious disdain for the mystical element of spirituality and their desire to appropriate the spiritual experience and label it as just a confirmation that their authority is true.

In fact, the spiritual enlargement experience has been experienced down through the ages and has been recorded and interpreted over and over. It is referred to as the "Mysterium Tremens" by ancient authors and is said to transcend words.

Words were never a problem for Joseph Smith, of course, as he and his successors systematically demystified Christianity as his most successful con and the one that would grant him the power he craved, the sex he wanted, all the alcohol/tobacco he wanted and the fame his craven bloated ego demanded.

There is no doubt in my mind he never had a mind-expanding spiritual revelation that expanded his ego outside himself to include all humanity in a compassionate embrace.

When I left Mormonism, I felt I had been duped into leaving Christianity and was angry that the utterances of self-serving lusty prophets could supersede the words of Christ, than a venal man like Joseph Smith could have the admiration of the Mormon masses and be called "Our Lord" just like Jesus.

Revolting.

Twenty years later after joining several Christian religions and leaving them over the politics, I woke up one morning and looked with new eyes on the crucifix on the wall across from my bed. I didn't study it out or rely on a rational argument, I just saw things differently. I had worked on developing a rational moral code of my own, values of my own, and a God which encouraged human sacrifice, including offering his own son...violence to make up for other people's violence? No longer made sense.

How can a tortured death gain points for other people. STOP.
My mind just could not embrace this any more and I slipped into the forest seeking a simpler and more basic relationship with the world. I found what I wanted at the seashore. I had the experience of being embraced by love and knowing that unlike the conditioning I had all my life in all these different religions, I was basically good and perfectly acceptable just the way I am.

I didn't need to earn blessings or credits or learn signs and tokens, that I was known and loved and so was every other living thing on earth. Some people say that when all is love, nothing is love. Nothing could be further from the truth. When all is love, there is peace within EVEN IF YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT SEES IT. Peace is a world within you and can be held even when the environment is chaotic.

That's what I experienced and others here came out of Mormonism very differently, but the one thing we have in common is that life as an individual is far better than life as a member of a heartless collective.

Namaste

Anagrammy

Oh big Poo, I thought it a fair question for this particular board.
Didn't bother me or I would not of answered

Questioning is good
I heard no direct challenge, at least not from OP :)

hehehehehe



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2012 06:31PM by mindlight.

Maybe it depends on why someone has left the LDS Church. For myself - someone who studied my way out - I find it hard to imagine someone just stopping at that point.

Once you've gained a thirst for truth and knowledge, it seems impossible to just stop there and settle for other fairy tales. Once you've demolished the Book of Mormon, you can't help but go, "Hey, wait a minute. What about these other books of so-called scriptures," and you keep studying and searching for truth.

That was my experience anyway. But I suppose that if someone left the Church for another reason, simply deciding that Christianity is real, but somehow they landed in the wrong church, then their search would be to go out there to find the right church for them.

Maybe it depends on why someone leaves in the first place.

I guess for me it's just that coming -to-a-definite-conclusion such as atheism, is quite similar to the same coming-to-a-definite -conclusion to Mormonism. It's too extreme for me in both directions.
The answer is :
There isn't one. There is no definite answer. So to say you are atheist is a pretty bold statement imo, an extreme statement meaning you have the secret to the formation of matter or some other such scientific discovery to explain our existence?
To say definitively one way or another is IMHO a similar arrogance I see when tbms "know" their church is true. (BTW I'm not saying the folks here are arrogant, I am taking issue with the definition I suppose).

All I'm saying, is what's wrong with just being agnostic? Because if we all don't know, then that's just it: the definition of agnostic is that you don't know. Isn't that the only honest position one can take?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2012 12:52AM by FormerLatterClimber.

It's not a question of whether you know. Nobody know.

It's a question of whether you believe, or reject belief. Most folks who believe in a god also acknowledge they don't know there's a god. They are 2 different questions.

Atheism is not extreme. It's the exact middle. It's the default position. It is not the position that no gods exist. It's simply rejecting belief since no evidence exists. It's as honest as it gets.

I see, then how is agnosticism different?

Gnosticism/Agnosticism address the question of knowledge: Gnosis = Knowledge

Theism/Atheism address the question of belief.

Christians, for example are Agnostic Theists. They can't know that jesus really exists, but they believe it.

I'm agnostic atheist. I don't know if any gods exists. I see no reason to believe any gods exist. I'm exactly in the middle.

I don't assert that no gods exist. They might. Zeus might be real. But I certainly don't believe in him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2012 01:12AM by kolobian.

Thanks for this breakdown. I like the knowledge v belief verbage.

There is no evidence to support the existence of God . Zero! Therefore anyone making the claim that God does exist is in the position of providing evidence for their claim. Not the other way around. It's frustrating to hear a believer spout " you cannot prove God DOESN'T exist. The reality is we don't have to because believers are the ones making a claim therefore the burden of proof is upon them.

We can't prove mermaids and fairies don't exist either.