General religious discussion thread

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

On 4/25/2025 at 10:14 PM, ShatteredDiamond said:

Why do so many people assume some sort of conflict between science and religion? Science is the set of rules that governs the universe. Religion is the explanation, the why behind those rules, why life is at all, the guiding force behind existence. Sorry if that was phrased poorly I'm too tired to edit

This kind of "Non-overlapping magisteria" notion is the death of God repackaged so as to cling to God as the source of answers to ought problems while surrendering the power to answer any problem of is. Science most likely can answer questions of why "life" (footnote 1) came to be, research into the topic of abiogenesis is just not given the kind of major project funding that things like atomic physics, medical science, and computer science have.

Charles Darwin and Nicolaus Copernicus are both so profoundly remembered because they displaced humans, the beings which engage in religion, from the center of the order of the universe. The sensation that the world was made for humans, with our species (footnote 2) being the final creation of God or at least the gods' chosen servants, but Darwin showed a path by which our form of life would emerge via a gradual process instead of a singular moment of creation and Copernicus displaced the Earth from the center/bottom/fixed location in the cosmos that would indicate it was specially made.

There is also the problem brought up in Liu Cixin's Three Body trilogy: Even if it were that there was intelligence that gave rise to the conditions of the world that we know, there is no reason to believe that intelligence meant those outcomes for us or that it is at all benevolent towards us. Character's in that book bring up two examples of this, called the Farmer and the Shooter. The Farmer story imagines the scholars of a population of chickens who live in a barn. One chicken scholar notices that food comes down the pipe in the ceiling and realizes it does so on regular intervals. This scholar thinks they have discovered a law of the universe that relates food and time. They announce this to their peers and the chicken scientist community prepares to verify the theory of food-time by measuring the interval between food arriving. But then the farmer takes the chickens to slaughter, because the cause of the food was not time itself but a will to consume the chickens. The shooter story is instead about termites, who are turning an abandoned barn into a burrow. Their entire world is this barn, and they, like the chickens, know no other world but it. One termite scholar notices that there are hole in the wall of the barn that are spaced 20 centimeters apart. Sure enough, this pattern continues all the way around the barn, extending as far as can be observed. The termites think they have found a law of nature, but they have simply found the outcome of the farmer who once owned the barn deciding to show off his rifle shooting to his friends once by shooting his barn repeatedly. (foot note 3)

Notice that neither of these "whys" are the kinds of why that religion produces. No one supposes that their god is simply trying to use them as food, even the Babylonians who thought Enki, also known as Ea, made humans for their ability to labor. Even the Deists thought that God acted with purpose that related to the result of his actions being meaningful even if he no longer was among us.

Now to turn this around. There are three German language writers who famously did yet more terrible wounds to God: Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche. Each came up with reasons why humans make God: Marx saw God as a way for the oppressed class of society to be assured that there would be a world where they would be fully rewarded for their service to a superior and this hope would ease the pain of their life. Freud sees God as a for the ego to console itself when confronted with the prospect that it will cease to be. Nietzsche sees God as a means by which humans abdicated the terrible work of having to use their own strength to assert the truth of their values, relying on the strength of a myth to do so. Rather than God explaining why things are, the question is turned around to ask why God is, and nothing mystical is needed. (footnote 4)

Well, this sure got long. I could get into my sense of how Kant effectively answered the question of the Euthyphro dialog by making a case that universal morality follows the law of non-contradiction, but I can't even remember what wikipedia articles to point to in order to try to illuminate where I got those ideas from.

1. "Life" as a category is ideological. I once took a biology class which gave a definition of life with 5 factors, and I immediately noticed that stars satisfied them if understood in a certain way. That we do not see stars or rivers or many other things as alive is a contour of the notion of life, and thus why those things are or are not alive can be answered with "because we think it is so".

2. "species" is like life in that it is ideological. The use of the notion of interbreeding that produces young who can in turn breed on fails to produce clear lines when so-called ring species are considered.

3. It might have been ants in the book and they might have been walking along the surface of the barn. Not sure it matters.

4. This has been a variation on ideas found in a lecture by Rick Roderick.

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

General opinion question: what is the purpose of religion?

[Mattel]

On 4/29/2025 at 8:26 PM, Kaladin Stormcursed said:

General opinion question: what is the purpose of religion?

I wish I could answer this in one sentence and it makes sense. Alas, I cannot.

I think... I think that maybe there isn't one (FYI I know I have started saying this a lot but it seems like a helpful preface: I am a christian). Since I am a Christian, Religion to me is creating a relationship with God. So based off of how I view this, that question is similar to asking "why do you have a relationship with your parents?" They gave you life, generally you are stuck in the same building as them for many years, and because in general you want to be around your parents. 

 

I have a question for anyone who has a belief system that does not say that divinity created the world. Where did the world come from? And when I say "world" I mean like the entire world. As I read through this thread I noticed some people didn't answer that question or it gave an answer I personally find unsatisfactory to what seems right or even feasible. 

 

Also I have a question for those of the Church of LDS. I have wanted to know the answer to this so badly. Why do you all believe in the "Godhead," and not the "Trinity?" The Bible itself kinda seems clear on this. In John 10:30 Jesus says "I and the Father are one." 

Another queery for those of the Church of LDS: Not to seem accusatory or rude, but to me adding on to the bible is heresy. Revelation 22:18-19: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Does not this verse clearly and explicitly state that adding to the Bible is something not to be done? So how is what Joseph Smith did not adding onto the Bible? Even if someone said Joseph Smith didn't add onto it, and he just completed it, this seems entirely illogical. While I am not one to assume God's plans or motives, it seems entirely illogical to me that God would hand us a majority of what we need, but not all of it. Why would he keep back the books of the Bible that Joseph Smith created? The Bible is the greatest book ever written, and all of it is beautifully interconnected. It seems illogical to me then that God would randomly 1800 years later give us more. So does anyone have an answer to this?

 

I think @Chaos talked about this but I am still not sure: Why is atheism not a religion? I'll explain why I view it as a religion. A definition of worship that I believe is very correct is this: Worship is when you give time or attention to something that you love. When we love God we give him worship. Most commonly is this done through music, but anything that is done for the sake of God is worship. But worship is not limited to God. If you love writing, for example, and devote all your time to writing, isn't that worshiping writing? If you were to entirely dote upon the needs of another person, wouldn't that be worshiping that person? You put their needs above your own out of the sake of love for them. So why am I talking about worship? I believe that the fact that anything can be worshiped shows that everyone has a spirituality. Those of us who are Christians can say our spirituality is believing in God. But what about someone who doesn't believe in God? Well what they worship reveals their spirituality. If you don't believe that God exists, and instead believe that no God exists, isn't that worshiping the idea that no God exists? If I say I believe in God, people would call that a religion and faith. If I said I do not believe in God, then suddenly it isn't a religion nor faith? If you didn't have faith that God didn't exist then you wouldn't believe that God doesn't exist. Atheism requires conviction in your method of faith. If you believe God doesn't exist you believe that God doesn't exist. You believe that God doesn't exist. How is that not a religion? The fact that it lacks a belief in any sort of Divine doesn't make it any less of a system of belief.

Anyone have any questions that I can potentially answer?

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

52 minutes ago, Mattel said:

I think... I think that maybe there isn't one (FYI I know I have started saying this a lot but it seems like a helpful preface: I am a christian). Since I am a Christian, Religion to me is creating a relationship with God. So based off of how I view this, that question is similar to asking "why do you have a relationship with your parents?" They gave you life, generally you are stuck in the same building as them for many years, and because in general you want to be around your parents.

I really like this explanation, that's a good way of phrasing and connecting it I think

52 minutes ago, Mattel said:

I have a question for anyone who has a belief system that does not say that divinity created the world. Where did the world come from? And when I say "world" I mean like the entire world. As I read through this thread I noticed some people didn't answer that question or it gave an answer I personally find unsatisfactory to what seems right or even feasible. 

I tend to follow science on this and accept that the world came from condensed energy; that, of course, gets to the question of "where does that energy come from," which I think at this point is where most religions that accept science have begun to stem from; the belief that this energy is God (oversimplification of a really abstract concept; I'm sorry if that is insulting or otherwise off-mark, it was not intended to be, but I'm struggling with how to word it and that's the best I could come up with). Whatever you think of that source energy, though, the question is "where did that energy come from," which kinda leaves us with...it was always there, and unless the laws of physics break down when we get that far back (which we think they might, so this isn't foolproof), that energy literally always existed. Like forever. Which is a long way to say, I don't really think we are really capable of finding a good answer to that unfortunately

56 minutes ago, Mattel said:

Why is atheism not a religion? I'll explain why I view it as a religion. A definition of worship that I believe is very correct is this: Worship is when you give time or attention to something that you love. When we love God we give him worship. Most commonly is this done through music, but anything that is done for the sake of God is worship. But worship is not limited to God. If you love writing, for example, and devote all your time to writing, isn't that worshiping writing? If you were to entirely dote upon the needs of another person, wouldn't that be worshiping that person? You put their needs above your own out of the sake of love for them. So why am I talking about worship? I believe that the fact that anything can be worshiped shows that everyone has a spirituality. Those of us who are Christians can say our spirituality is believing in God. But what about someone who doesn't believe in God? Well what they worship reveals their spirituality. If you don't believe that God exists, and instead believe that no God exists, isn't that worshiping the idea that no God exists? If I say I believe in God, people would call that a religion and faith. If I said I do not believe in God, then suddenly it isn't a religion nor faith? If you didn't have faith that God didn't exist then you wouldn't believe that God doesn't exist. Atheism requires conviction in your method of faith. If you believe God doesn't exist you believe that God doesn't exist. You believe that God doesn't exist. How is that not a religion? The fact that it lacks a belief in any sort of Divine doesn't make it any less of a system of belief.

This makes a lot of sense to me. As an atheist/agnostic/it's complicated, I still have a belief system, it just doesn't center around a God or gods (unless we're joking around). For me, my belief system is my martial art, which provides me with a community, a set of morals, and a kind of structure to my path, which—as an outsider looking in—seems to be what many religions (in the traditional sense, not the sense argued for here) provide at their most basic level. I'm honestly not sure how we got to the point where it has to be based on a God or gods or powerful spirits to be a religion, and it makes me wonder if we're misinterpreting ancient "religions" like the Egyptians because we're trying to align them with our traditional views of how religions should be.

[ShatteredDiamond She/Her]

On 4/29/2025 at 8:26 PM, Kaladin Stormcursed said:

General opinion question: what is the purpose of religion?

I am a Latter Day Saint, for reference.

In many ways, I believe this is like asking the purpose of math. Yes of course there is a purpose, and I'll get to that in a second, but I believe it simply is. Its true. Anyway, purpose.

Religious people tend to live longer, have better mental health, and even better physical health. (for Latter Day Saints especially bc of the word of wisdom). So religion gives you individually a better life.

But the huge benefits are for society. A society of people who believe there are inherent reasons to be good (or at least decent) law abiding citizens will flourish. Religious people also tend to have more families, which is a recipe for more productive adults trying to provide for their children, wanting the best for the worlds future, being contributing citizens.

Aaaand my computers about to die but I think that's most of what I wanted to say.

Edited May 2, 2025 by ShatteredDiamond

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

2 hours ago, Mattel said:

I have a question for anyone who has a belief system that does not say that divinity created the world. Where did the world come from? And when I say "world" I mean like the entire world.

It simply happened on its own. You might ask where God came from, and you will eventually need to give the same answer of "it simply is". You might suppose God is beyond time, but then I may reply that the begining of the world is a thing beyond time. What you are echoing is Aristotle's notion of the unmoved mover. My response to this idea is not to say I know for sure such a thing is not, but to echo a version what the Buddhists say: It would only be a delusion of such a mover that their motion is something of supreme importance.

2 hours ago, Mattel said:

Why is atheism not a religion?

Atheism is an attitude, not a religion. It doesn't describe particular cares (consider reading Heiddegar's "Being and Time" for thoughts on the notion of cares, it is similar to your wroship notion). There are humanist atheists, atheists who care for nature more broadly, and the buddhism is out there supposing all kinds of fantastic devas and asura but it's true care is for the process of karma and attaining Nirvana and as such none of them are it's central care.

I personally give my care to beauty in it's twin forms of the sublime of nature and the excellence of art or craft. These aren't a god to me because they are without a will of their own. To me, all gods are ugly creations, hideous in how they blind people to their own creative potentials.

[Chaos he/him]

2 hours ago, Mattel said:

I think @Chaos talked about this but I am still not sure: Why is atheism not a religion? I'll explain why I view it as a religion. A definition of worship that I believe is very correct is this: Worship is when you give time or attention to something that you love. When we love God we give him worship. Most commonly is this done through music, but anything that is done for the sake of God is worship. But worship is not limited to God. If you love writing, for example, and devote all your time to writing, isn't that worshiping writing? If you were to entirely dote upon the needs of another person, wouldn't that be worshiping that person? You put their needs above your own out of the sake of love for them. So why am I talking about worship? I believe that the fact that anything can be worshiped shows that everyone has a spirituality. Those of us who are Christians can say our spirituality is believing in God. But what about someone who doesn't believe in God? Well what they worship reveals their spirituality. If you don't believe that God exists, and instead believe that no God exists, isn't that worshiping the idea that no God exists? If I say I believe in God, people would call that a religion and faith. If I said I do not believe in God, then suddenly it isn't a religion nor faith? If you didn't have faith that God didn't exist then you wouldn't believe that God doesn't exist. Atheism requires conviction in your method of faith. If you believe God doesn't exist you believe that God doesn't exist. You believe that God doesn't exist. How is that not a religion? The fact that it lacks a belief in any sort of Divine doesn't make it any less of a system of belief.

Good question. This can be a matter of definitions, and so yeah, maybe some atheists do say it as such, but many atheists I know would not use your definition of atheism. They do not say, "I know God/the supernatural for sure does not exist". They might say, "here are my reasons for thinking this specific religion is BS" but that certainly does not generalize. Moreover, it's the lack of being convinced of any specific God claim.

If I told you I have a dragon in my closet, how do you react? Are you convinced of that? I would say most people, at a baseline, would think that I don't in fact have a dragon in my closet. You just are not convinced I do. Maybe if I brought it on camera and it blew some fire, you'd be like, hey, wow, you do have a dragon! But by default, it's a rather extraordinary claim that you wouldn't believe without more convincing. That does not mean you affirmatively believe that no dragons exist, or have ever existed. Just that you're not convinced that I have a dragon.

Another example: I actually was on the phone with my dad (very rare, he's a horrible person) and he said he had a phone call with God. They talked for forty minutes, apparently. I asked him how he knew it was God. He said that the speakerphone was broken on the landline phone and God spoke very loudly. My dad said that they agreed on almost everything, too. (Note also he seems to really be losing his mind.) Now, I certainly don't think my dad represents anyone but himself, but I think most of you all reading would this would be like, "Okay, this guy is a weirdo out of his mind and I don't believe him." That story certainly is not convincing to me, nor believers I've told this story to.

That's the level that I think most atheists are at. Open to being convinced with sufficient evidence, and hey, if there's an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent deity, that should be trivially easy to do. To my eyes, there's not much concrete to go off of. And also to my eyes, there seems to be plenty of evidence that religion is very much a thing humans created, rather than the other way around, so this all makes perfect sense. 

I'm not convinced by any supernatural claim so far. I am not a priori excluding it, but humans are pattern seeking, confirmation bias machines. If there is incontrovertible evidence that, importantly, does not require for me to already believe in something for it to happen, that no matter what worldview you have, you can see it happen before your very eyes, then cool, I am down for the supernatural existing. The second some wizard comes by and is like, "Hey, check out me summon lightning on command" and they can repeat it, I'm so in, especially if I can have that power. I do think I can be convinced supernatural things are real--or at least, there's some additional mechanics that are totally foreign to science.

So no. I do not worship the idea that God doesn't exist (though I'll be honest, I don't really understand even for an atheist who makes the positive claim that God doesn't exist how you'd even worship that in any practical sense). I do not worship anything. I do not have the desire to worship or obey anything. I do not have a desire for an afterlife, nor am I up at night that I don't know the answers to why we exist, where the universe came from, and all those existential questions. It does not bother me to say, "I don't know, and we may never know." Lots of people say they have an answer, but I don't think having just an answer is good enough unless it can be shown that yes, it is definitively the answer. A bad, poorly justified answer is worse than just saying "I don't know," in my opinion.

I specifically try to not dogmatically hold to any opinion. I don't want to believe anything ardently. I want to accept things that can be demonstrated, and if better evidence comes along, I'm in. Why would I hold something on faith and get something incorrect? There is nothing wrong with changing my mind when better information comes about. All knowledge is provisional, and that's okay.

Anyway, that was a long response. I hope that makes sense. I could go on a lot longer, but this is the concise version.

Also, I'm not sure what your definition of religion is, but I don't see how atheism could be a religion. There are no rituals or rites. No acts of service or devotion... There are no precepts, no code of morality. The only thing that unites atheists is that we aren't convinced God/gods are real. That's it! Some might use the little gnostic/agnostic theist/atheist chart, but a lot don't. The labels are squishy and you can't prescribe what people how people feel about God by the label they choose. The easiest way is to just ask them what they think/believe, and that goes for any religion, belief, or lack thereof.

[Immortal Platypus]

14 hours ago, Mattel said:

Also I have a question for those of the Church of LDS. I have wanted to know the answer to this so badly. Why do you all believe in the "Godhead," and not the "Trinity?" The Bible itself kinda seems clear on this. In John 10:30 Jesus says "I and the Father are one." 

We believe that means closer to "one in purpose" than "we are the same being." the main reason we believe this, however, is because we have modern-day revelation saying it's the case. For example, we believe that Joseph Smith saw both the Father and the Son, and that they were different. I'd recommend you visit churchofjesuschrist.org for questions like these, they'll typically have answers that are significantly better than any of us can give. This is the page I'd recommend for that question specifically. 

Quote

Another query for those of the Church of LDS: Not to seem accusatory or rude, but to me adding on to the bible is heresy. Revelation 22:18-19: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Does not this verse clearly and explicitly state that adding to the Bible is something not to be done? So how is what Joseph Smith did not adding onto the Bible? Even if someone said Joseph Smith didn't add onto it, and he just completed it, this seems entirely illogical. While I am not one to assume God's plans or motives, it seems entirely illogical to me that God would hand us a majority of what we need, but not all of it. Why would he keep back the books of the Bible that Joseph Smith created? The Bible is the greatest book ever written, and all of it is beautifully interconnected. It seems illogical to me then that God would randomly 1800 years later give us more. So does anyone have an answer to this?

We believe that John specifically meant his book of revelation when he said that, not the Bible as a whole. I've actually been meaning to have a conversation with my seminary teacher about this (he knows more than me ), and I'll get back to you with the reasons we believe this. 

Also, you're going to have to clarify what you mean by "what Joseph Smith did." Do you mean the JST or the Book of Mormon? 

Just because something seems illogical to us, doesn't mean God wouldn't do it. Job is a good example. Isaiah 55:8 says "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."

Joseph also didn't "create" any books of the Bible. As for why he would keep them back, we don't believe that, we believe that truths were lost in translation or through the centuries it has been since then. 

Quote

I think @Chaos talked about this but I am still not sure: Why is atheism not a religion? I'll explain why I view it as a religion. A definition of worship that I believe is very correct is this: Worship is when you give time or attention to something that you love. When we love God we give him worship. Most commonly is this done through music, but anything that is done for the sake of God is worship. But worship is not limited to God. If you love writing, for example, and devote all your time to writing, isn't that worshiping writing? If you were to entirely dote upon the needs of another person, wouldn't that be worshiping that person? You put their needs above your own out of the sake of love for them. So why am I talking about worship? I believe that the fact that anything can be worshiped shows that everyone has a spirituality. Those of us who are Christians can say our spirituality is believing in God. But what about someone who doesn't believe in God? Well what they worship reveals their spirituality. If you don't believe that God exists, and instead believe that no God exists, isn't that worshiping the idea that no God exists? If I say I believe in God, people would call that a religion and faith. If I said I do not believe in God, then suddenly it isn't a religion nor faith? If you didn't have faith that God didn't exist then you wouldn't believe that God doesn't exist. Atheism requires conviction in your method of faith. If you believe God doesn't exist you believe that God doesn't exist. You believe that God doesn't exist. How is that not a religion? The fact that it lacks a belief in any sort of Divine doesn't make it any less of a system of belief.

Anyone have any questions that I can potentially answer?

would you say agnosticism is a religion? I would say aethiesm is the active disbelief in God(s), while agnosticism is the interference thereof. I also don't necessarily agree with your definition of worship. Worship feels like it needs to have reverence and/or respect involved in it, and (to use your example), I don't think that that's the case with writing, even if you put a bunch of time into it.

11 hours ago, Chaos said:

Good question. This can be a matter of definitions, and so yeah, maybe some atheists do say it as such, but many atheists I know would not use your definition of atheism. They do not say, "I know God/the supernatural for sure does not exist". They might say, "here are my reasons for thinking this specific religion is BS" but that certainly does not generalize. Moreover, it's the lack of being convinced of any specific God claim.

So how is that different from agnosticism? I think in modern society we often get them confused, but I feel atheism is the active disbelief in God(s), while agnosticism is the sort of "indifference" (for lack of a better word) that your post seems to describe. 

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

5 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

So how is that different from agnosticism? I think in modern society we often get them confused, but I feel atheism is the active disbelief in God(s), while agnosticism is the sort of "indifference" (for lack of a better word) that your post seems to describe. 

Agnosticism is a stance one the knowledge of the existence of God/god. You can be an agnostic theist, supposing that the existence of gods/God cannot be known as one knows facts such as "does the sun exist" while still believing in gods/God. Soren Kirkegaard probably could be described this way, since his whole thing is that believing in God was to be done wholly without evidence and even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

[Chaos he/him]

1 minute ago, Immortal Platypus said:

So how is that different from agnosticism? I think in modern society we often get them confused, but I feel atheism is the active disbelief in God(s), while agnosticism is the sort of "indifference" (for lack of a better word) that your post seems to describe. 

Well, ultimately, it's what people choose to call themselves. They are not going to be using academic definitions, just as no one is going to agree as to who is a "real Christian" after all. If you're confused by what a person means, ask them!

Some would say belief in God (theism/atheism) vs. knowledge (gnosticism/agnosticism) are different. Certainly by the definition I gave, yes, many agnostics would fit that category. If you subscribe to these two categories, then I'm an agnostic atheist (I don't believe in God, but I can't know for sure). I think the word atheist gets a bad wrap from religious people in general--there are still many who think that if you don't believe in God, you are a totally immoral person--so maybe agnosticism feels "lighter" and more palatable.

I'd argue, though, there is not a person in the world who knows for certain God exists or not. Lots claim to, though! 

As for me, I described myself as an agnostic for a while. Maybe God exists, maybe God doesn't. When I got more experience, let's say, I started to think, "Okay, yeah, this specific God concept seems impossible" and so rather than, "eh, maybe God exists" it became more "Probably not." 

But yeah, the important thing is that these labels are arbitrary, and have cultural context, so you can't just apply academic definitions to people and think that works. The atheists I know don't believe God exists and don't really care, and it's utterly irrelevant to their lives. Call that whatever you wish.

[Entr0pic He/him]

16 hours ago, Mattel said:

I have a question for anyone who has a belief system that does not say that divinity created the world. Where did the world come from? And when I say "world" I mean like the entire world. As I read through this thread I noticed some people didn't answer that question or it gave an answer I personally find unsatisfactory to what seems right or even feasible. 

I’m a tad late to this, but i wanted to throw in my two cents. As an atheist, I view the beginning of the world as i imagine most religious folk do about the existence of god. It simply came to be, outside of our understanding of time.  

[Immortal Platypus]

5 minutes ago, ParaTulip said:

Agnosticism is a stance one the knowledge of the existence of God/god. You can be an agnostic theist, supposing that the existence of gods/God cannot be known as one knows facts such as "does the sun exist" while still believing in gods/God. Soren Kirkegaard probably could be described this way, since his whole thing is that believing in God was to be done wholly without evidence and even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

that's kind of what I'm saying. Agnostics can lean either way, but they don't believe that it's knowable. In my personal experience, this seems to lean atheistic, but doesn't have to.

Just now, Chaos said:

Well, ultimately, it's what people choose to call themselves. They are not going to be using academic definitions, just as no one is going to agree as to who is a "real Christian" after all. If you're confused by what a person means, ask them!

Some would say belief in God (theism/atheism) vs. knowledge (gnosticism/agnosticism) are different. Certainly by the definition I gave, yes, many agnostics would fit that category. If you subscribe to these two categories, then I'm an agnostic atheist (I don't believe in God, but I can't know for sure). I think the word atheist gets a bad wrap from religious people in general--there are still many who think that if you don't believe in God, you are a totally immoral person--so maybe agnosticism feels "lighter" and more palatable.

I'd argue, though, there is not a person in the world who knows for certain God exists or not. Lots claim to, though! 

As for me, I described myself as an agnostic for a while. Maybe God exists, maybe God doesn't. When I got more experience, let's say, I started to think, "Okay, yeah, this specific God concept seems impossible" and so rather than, "eh, maybe God exists" it became more "Probably not." 

But yeah, the important thing is that these labels are arbitrary, and have cultural context, so you can't just apply academic definitions to people and think that works. The atheists I know don't believe God exists and don't really care, and it's utterly irrelevant to their lives. Call that whatever you wish.

hmm. alright 

[Mattel]

The reason I think atheism is a religion, is because it is a method of belief. Atheism is a direct stance on the Divine. Isn't that what every other religion has in common? Almost all others say that there is some essence of Divinity in the world, but atheism is different because they say that the Divine does not exist or that they do not believe it exists, but to me that's the same difference. Atheism is not believing that there is a God. So to me it is a religion that revolves around the idea that there is not a God. For other religions they revolve around the idea that there is a God. Why is it that believing in a God makes it a religion, but not believing in God isn't? They both require belief. That is the strongest reason in my mind as to why atheism is a religion. It requires conviction, faith, and you must believe in atheism in order to identify as an atheist. I need faith, conviction, and believe in Christianity and it makes me a Christian.

Does that make more sense? I think I explained it poorly the first time. I am better at understanding my own views as I talk about them.

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

24 minutes ago, Mattel said:

It requires conviction, faith, and you must believe in atheism in order to identify as an atheist. I need faith, conviction, and believe in Christianity and it makes me a Christian.

It doesn't take conviction to be an atheist. Newborn infants lack a belief in any god, simply because they haven't encountered the idea. You are thinking of apostates, who are people who have been inducted into a religion and left it. As atheism is more and more common thene days, plenty of people don't encounter belief in anything supernatural as something to see as real far long spans of their lives, only seeing such things in fictional media or as quirks of history like a belief in malicious witches who ally with the devil. There's no more conviction there than your own understanding that Kaladin Stormblessed isn't a real person.

There's many kinds of atheist, something I pointed out to you in an earlier reply. There are religions that don't center a gad in their beliefs, these are different from what most people mean by atheist.

[Chaos he/him]

34 minutes ago, Mattel said:

The reason I think atheism is a religion, is because it is a method of belief. Atheism is a direct stance on the Divine. Isn't that what every other religion has in common? Almost all others say that there is some essence of Divinity in the world, but atheism is different because they say that the Divine does not exist or that they do not believe it exists, but to me that's the same difference. Atheism is not believing that there is a God. So to me it is a religion that revolves around the idea that there is not a God. For other religions they revolve around the idea that there is a God. Why is it that believing in a God makes it a religion, but not believing in God isn't? They both require belief. That is the strongest reason in my mind as to why atheism is a religion. It requires conviction, faith, and you must believe in atheism in order to identify as an atheist. I need faith, conviction, and believe in Christianity and it makes me a Christian.

Does that make more sense? I think I explained it poorly the first time. I am better at understanding my own views as I talk about them.

I feel like you kind of said the same thing twice. I'm saying I do not have faith, you're saying I do. What do I have faith in? Do you have faith that I don't have my dragon in the closet? Do you go to church with other people proclaiming faith and worshipping the idea that I don't have a dragon? That, to me, is absurd. There's tons of things you don't personally believe; that doesn't mean you have faith in those disbeliefs. 

I don't know how to say this: I do not have any convictions like you state. I do not have faith, I do not believe anything, particularly as ardently as you do.

Do "almost all" others think there's divinity? I think that's a pretty narrow view. Sure, lots do, but this is very culturally dependent, and the form of it varies. Many places have a big population that don't. And I'll be honest, you can feel it's true all you want, but that is not the same thing as showing it is the case. 

18 hours ago, Mattel said:

While I am not one to assume God's plans or motives, it seems entirely illogical to me that God would hand us a majority of what we need, but not all of it. Why would he keep back the books of the Bible that Joseph Smith created? The Bible is the greatest book ever written, and all of it is beautifully interconnected. It seems illogical to me then that God would randomly 1800 years later give us more. So does anyone have an answer to this?

I wanted to follow up on this actually. I think this is pretty dangerous logic here for you, because you could also say, why did God hold back on the Bible? We have evidence that anatomically modern humans have existed for about two hundred thousand years. Do their souls not matter? What about other species in genus homo, like homo erectus, who were quite intelligent and anthropologists would classify as humans. They existed for two million years.... 

Also, you could also argue, "Why did God add to the Old Testament with the New Testament" just as similarly.

[-ACE- he/him]

On 5/1/2025 at 6:16 PM, Mattel said:

Also I have a question for those of the Church of LDS. I have wanted to know the answer to this so badly. Why do you all believe in the "Godhead," and not the "Trinity?" The Bible itself kinda seems clear on this. In John 10:30 Jesus says "I and the Father are one." 

When they say it here it is metaphorical, meaning that Christ and God have the same interests and basically goals. Do not quote me on this, I'm not well studied on this subject, but I have looked a bit into this. Also keep in mind, that in our Book of Mormon, it explicitly says that there are 3 divine beings, not one with three aspects (also don't quote me on that I don't really know what other people believe that well as I'm only 13) many times, and that is the book of doctrine that our religion is primarily based on.

On 5/1/2025 at 6:16 PM, Mattel said:

While I am not one to assume God's plans or motives, it seems entirely illogical to me that God would hand us a majority of what we need, but not all of it. Why would he keep back the books of the Bible that Joseph Smith created? The Bible is the greatest book ever written, and all of it is beautifully interconnected. It seems illogical to me then that God would randomly 1800 years later give us more. So does anyone have an answer to this?

I also have an answer to this. The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ, but it follows events in the Americas while the Bible takes place in the Middle East. Keep in mind, Joseph Smith found the golden plates that led to the book of Mormon only about 50 years after the U.S. was made a country, so also about 50 years after the North America were majorly colonized.

 

I will try my best to answer any questions about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as I can. While I am only 13, I am more well versed in this topic that most 20 year olds in the LDS church, and am happy to help people understand my religion, But honestly, Immortal platypus seems more educated about this than I am. 

Edited May 6, 2025 by FRENZEE
addition to previous stuff

[-ACE- he/him]

On 5/2/2025 at 1:19 PM, Chaos said:

I feel like you kind of said the same thing twice. I'm saying I do not have faith, you're saying I do. What do I have faith in? Do you have faith that I don't have my dragon in the closet? Do you go to church with other people proclaiming faith and worshipping the idea that I don't have a dragon? That, to me, is absurd. There's tons of things you don't personally believe; that doesn't mean you have faith in those disbeliefs. 

I don't know how to say this: I do not have any convictions like you state. I do not have faith, I do not believe anything, particularly as ardently as you do.

 

I also believe that atheism in a religion, because they believe that there is no God. I think Atheists believe in science, like how most of them believe in big bang (Chaos, do you believe in it?) and that It created the universe. You have no real proof of this, yet you believe in it. It's the same for life. No one really knows how life was created, but they do believe that life was created somehow, without knowledge of how. That is faith. Even if you are atheist, because Faith is believing in something that cannot or has not been seen or proven. That is why atheism is a religion. (Chaos or some other atheist please correct me if any of the thing I just said are incorrect about atheism.)

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

5 hours ago, FRENZEE said:

big bang (Chaos, do you believe in it?) and that It created the universe. You have no real proof of this, yet you believe in it.

Okay, so I can't speak for everyone, but the big-bang theory isn't really an explanation for how the universe was made as it is the implication of a few observations.

First, have you ever heard an ambulance drive by you? You might have noticed that the sound seems to get higher pitched as it is approaching and then gets lower in pitch as it goes away. This is a property of waves traveling relative to their observe that occurs in both sound and light. In light, we call the shifting towards a higher "pitch" blueshifting and towards a lower "pitch" redshifting.

Second, there is a general trend among galaxies in space that, the further away that galaxy is, the more intensely redshifted the light from it is.

Put these together, and we are effectively observing a universe where it seems like distant objects are traveling away from each other due to some kind of cosmological constant of spatial expansion. Since this expansion makes objects more distant as time move forward, then there is a clear implication that at some point in the past all of these things would have been closer together.

This all is relatively recent in its discovery because we lacked the ability to observe distant galaxies or non-visible light. You can suppose God made the universe and set this up to happen like this, but that is the matter of faith.

5 hours ago, FRENZEE said:

It's the same for life. No one really knows how life was created, but they do believe that life was created somehow, without knowledge of how. That is faith.

Do you know if I am typing on a phone, one a keyboard, or if I am dictating into a text to speech program right now? Does your conclusions that I must be somehow inputting data into a computer to send this message require faith?

Does it require faith to think I must have woken up at some point in time prior to sending this message, even though you do not know when or where I did this?

There are two possibilities: Either life has always existed, or it began to exist. I think most atheists tend to think it began to exist, and I might point out things like radioactive minerals to be a kind of evidence that supports that conclusion. But I think a lot of people would be indifferent, although maybe a bit annoyed over having believed something that later was demonstrated to not be the case, if an argument based on physical evidence could be made to demonstrated that life began at the very start of the universe.

Let me explain to you the other way to see this all: A lot of Jewish and Roman Catholic believers in God have no issue with anything science says. They accept the whole of evolution, a cosmology where time and space began as the big bang theory describes, and they simply say "Ah, so this is how God made the world". They have simply accepted that their scriptures are not the literal history of the world. They accept that the stories contain truths that are of extreme importance, but also that various elements of these stories are simply not factual. It is even common for Muslims to believe that the prophet Mohammad incorporated local mythology into the Quran in order to ensure it would be accepted by the people around him, not because Djinn are real. Their faith is in God, even as they know the scientific account of the world to be factually accurate.

[-ACE- he/him]

20 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

Do you know if I am typing on a phone, one a keyboard, or if I am dictating into a text to speech program right now? Does your conclusions that I must be somehow inputting data into a computer to send this message require faith?

Does it require faith to think I must have woken up at some point in time prior to sending this message, even though you do not know when or where I did this?

I have proof of these though, so I do not believe they require much faith. I have proof that you typed this on a computer, phone, or used text to speech, because I know so many people who type messages, and use text to speech. This is similar to running tests in a lab. For example, if someone is testing people's reflexes based off of their level of activity, they can take tons of people for their study to find the average reaction time, or even outliers, but there will always be extreme cases. SO.. because I know so many people who type or even use text to speech, I can be nearly certain that you type on a computer, phone or use text to speech. Am I certain? No, but am I almost confident? Yes. 

So, I do use a small amount of faith to believe that you are a human and not an AI, or that there isn't some tech that puts your thoughts on to the computer that you are using. So, in a way, you are right. I am using faith right now to believe that you are human.

It's the same with the other example you gave, that you woke up at some point before sending that message. All people have to go to sleep, and I believe that you did to, but I am not certain. That remaining uncertainty is overcome by the small amounts of faith required for me to believe that you were asleep and woke up before you wrote that message.

20 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

Let me explain to you the other way to see this all: A lot of Jewish and Roman Catholic believers in God have no issue with anything science says. They accept the whole of evolution, a cosmology where time and space began as the big bang theory describes, and they simply say "Ah, so this is how God made the world". They have simply accepted that their scriptures are not the literal history of the world. They accept that the stories contain truths that are of extreme importance, but also that various elements of these stories are simply not factual. It is even common for Muslims to believe that the prophet Mohammad incorporated local mythology into the Quran in order to ensure it would be accepted by the people around him, not because Djinn are real. Their faith is in God, even as they know the scientific account of the world to be factually accurate.

I also believe that most scientifically proven things are accurate. Most of them. For example, I do not believe that big bang ever happened, although it could be what you mentioned earlier, that it was just God's method of creating the Universe. It is possible, however, I believe that isn't the case. I believe that God created different parts of the universe at different times. 

This is because I believe that the bible is correct, and in Genisis it says: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." -- "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." I encourage you to read Genisis 1-3, to see the entire creation of life and earth. That is all

Edited May 7, 2025 by FRENZEE
Finishing post

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

4 hours ago, FRENZEE said:

I encourage you to read Genisis 1-3, to see the entire creation of life and earth.

Yeah, so I actually have read most of that narrative recently, but it was a Jewish version with commentary. That's how I know that the current scholarship indicates that the first book of the Torah is pretty clearly a later addition made to act as a kind of rebuttal to the Babylonian account of the making of the world. That's why God is acting as a supreme crafter, because he is standing in for Enki, and why the waters of the deep seem to pre-exist him, since they are standing in for Tiamat. There's even a note of how the Hebrew word for "the deep" has it's etymology rooted in the name of Tiamat.

Also, do you think a global flood literally happened? When do you think this was?

[-ACE- he/him]

17 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

Yeah, so I actually have read most of that narrative recently, but it was a Jewish version with commentary. That's how I know that the current scholarship indicates that the first book of the Torah is pretty clearly a later addition made to act as a kind of rebuttal to the Babylonian account of the making of the world. That's why God is acting as a supreme crafter, because he is standing in for Enki, and why the waters of the deep seem to pre-exist him, since they are standing in for Tiamat. There's even a note of how the Hebrew word for "the deep" has it's etymology rooted in the name of Tiamat.

Interesting. I didn't know this. I have never read the Jewish version.

17 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

Also, do you think a global flood literally happened? When do you think this was?

Yes, I do believe so. I think that that's where lake Bonneville and the great lakes came from. How else would all that water have ended up there? The only question I have about that is where did all the water come from? 

I have noticed that many incredible events in the bible and book of Mormon have an explanation that can be proved by science. For example, someone (I don't remember who) made a program to predict when the next solar/lunar eclipse will happen. They then used that program to look back at the locations of the sun and the earth. And, there was in fact a total solar (that lasted a long time because of the way the moon was rotating, making it one of the longest solar eclipses ever known) eclipse in Jerusalem around the same time that Christ was crucified. This shows that the solar eclipse was likely the three days of darkness following Christ's crucifixion and death. I just wonder if anything like that happened with the flood. (Maybe the moon got closer to earth, causing the sea level to rise significantly?) 

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

22 minutes ago, FRENZEE said:

Interesting. I didn't know this. I have never read the Jewish version.

It's the same text. I just had a copy with commentary from Jewish scholars included.

23 minutes ago, FRENZEE said:

I have noticed that many incredible events in the bible and book of Mormon have an explanation that can be proved by science.

I sincerely doubt this.

I think you should look into more modernist, non-literal, readings of scripture so you don't have to ignore so much of the observable world in favor of blindly accepting narratives.

I have no desire to engage in a conversation where the notions of science and faith are being twisted this severely. I do not have the care to go through the process of gathering resources to try to teach you why an eclipse can't last three days.

[Chaos he/him]

On 5/6/2025 at 8:44 AM, FRENZEE said:

I also believe that atheism in a religion, because they believe that there is no God. I think Atheists believe in science, like how most of them believe in big bang (Chaos, do you believe in it?) and that It created the universe. You have no real proof of this, yet you believe in it. It's the same for life. No one really knows how life was created, but they do believe that life was created somehow, without knowledge of how. That is faith. Even if you are atheist, because Faith is believing in something that cannot or has not been seen or proven. That is why atheism is a religion. (Chaos or some other atheist please correct me if any of the thing I just said are incorrect about atheism.)

For the comment that "atheists believe there is no God," please see my previous posts on this. I feel I have adequately dissected the matter that no, atheists in general do not make the assertive case there is definitively no God.

As for the others, this is a false equivalence. I don't think there's any scientist who believes a scientific claim to anything approaching the level of confidence and faith of any believer I have ever met. Scientists aren't at altars shaping their morality around the theory of relativity or atomic theory. Scientists accept that all truth is provisional, are honest in every paper that there are more questions to be answered. Any expert will be careful to qualify their statements.

It is not my intent to denigrate belief in this next clause, but I would say I have seen massive confidence in believers in claims. "Oh yes. I know for certain there is this all-powerful being. I know for certain I have definitely felt Him. I know for certain what will happen when I die." The confidence is almost an identity marker. It cannot be wrong, otherwise you don't belong in the social group. 

Science isn't like that. If someone expanded on Einstein's theory of relativity, I'd say, "Wow! That's awesome! Now we know more things." And then I just accept the evidence, because I believe claims on the merits of the evidence. Science is a method, it is not my identity. 

Also for me, if I am wrong, I want to know it. I only want to accept things that can be shown incontrovertibly true. If that is the supernatural, I am happy to change my worldview to accommodate. I have very literally never had a spiritual experience in my life. I am not convinced spiritual experiences even exist (though, obviously, many many people in this thread would disagree). But if I had a spiritual experience and could verify that it was spiritual/supernatural for certain, I am changing my worldview instantly. I want to be the least wrong I possibly can be, and that is always a lifelong process!

Now to go into some specific lines you had.

1. "Most of them believe in the Big Bang"

Because there is evidence to support it! Multiple independent lines of evidence, in fact. In science, we bombard claims with tons of scrutiny, and the thing that stands up to scrutiny is the thing that survives. Don't believe in the Big Bang? That's fine, but where's your model to explain the cosmic microwave background radiation? This was a very simple prediction of the Big Bang model. Check out the curve below. This is assuming the universe is hot everywhere in the early universe, and what would that would mean. Well, then we detected the cosmic microwave background, and the red dots are the observations.

Now I don't know about you, if I made a concrete prediction and it fit the model that well, that's incredible. I've done enough applied math (where you make mathematical models to fit data so you can make future predictions) to know that this is genuinely awesome. If you have a better explanation, I guarantee you will win a Nobel Prize. In science, you are rewarded for showing that the experts are wrong. You just need to bring the data to persuade people. 

This isn't the only evidence, mind you, but just one very compelling piece of specific evidence. Other evidence is how the Big Bang explains the data on the abundance of the light elements in the universe.

Are there details that need to be worked out? Yes, and cosmologists will tell you about them. But we sure know a lot! We have very concrete evidence that we can all see (notably, without believing the claim in advance) that points in a specific direction. This is why scientists can come to overall consensus and overwhelming agree. They are basing their conclusions on the evidence, and when the evidence points in a direction, that's what they agree. 

(For me, this is what I want in evidence for a claim, and what I find profoundly lacking in any god belief. Tell me the specific evidence that we can all agree is there that points exclusively to your specific version of God existing. Why your claims over any other religion?)

Now, I generally concur with the scientific consensus because I am honest that I don't know a lot of things, and probably people who know more about a thing they have spent their entire life studying a subject could go into immense detail on literally anything a layperson asks them.

And honestly, I think you do, too? You accept the ideas that atoms exist. You accept that bacteria and viruses exist. You take allergy medications during the spring if you get sniffly, and you don't really think about how awesome it is that we understand atoms, molecules, and specific molecules have a specific effect on your body, and other molecules can affect those other molecules and make you feel better. You just assume it works. You take for granted the absolutely insane confluence of physics and engineering to make your phone or computer work. Apple's M4 chip has transitors that are 3 nanometers long, and has 28 billion of them. By comparison, the smallest bacterium ever is 370-890 nanometers. It is almost inconceivable, almost preposterous to believe. Yet we build them. 

If you want to know about atoms, bacteria, viruses, medicine, or any scientific thing... you can learn why we think the way we do. You will learn the mountains and mountains of evidence for things that we know, and how we came to know them. You will personally do experiments to verify them. You will learn all the weird things that do not yet know. You will try to prove the greats wrong. Science is all about checking its work and trying to show you are wrong. It's teaching you how to thing rationally so you are the least wrong possible. Take some science classes and you'll learn basics, but the reality is so, so very complicated.

2. "It's the same for life. No one really knows how life was created, but they do believe that life was created somehow, without knowledge of how."

Abiogenesis, the study of how life began on Earth, is a vibrant field of study. Though the exact method is not known, there are many steps we know very well, and it is not so outlandish an idea as it seems. We know that basically as early in Earth's history that life could exist (in other words, after we stopped getting bombarded by asteroids), life developed almost immediately. That suggests it's not really that hard if you have the right pieces. The building blocks of life, amino acids, are found in space. So really they are all over the place. We have found molecules that can self-replicate, and RNA can do that. It's honestly so freaking cool, and very, very complicated, but if we know plausible pathways for macromolecules to form, is it so outlandish to think that it's just a consequence of the physics and chemistry? 

Also, I do want to note, your phrasing very specifically snuck in the conclusion you'd want to show. You said "No one really knows how life was created," which assumes that life was created, and that phrasing assumes in it a creator. That may be the case, but that would be a claim that requires evidence to properly evaluate. I would phrase it as "no one knows exactly how life began". 

3. "they do believe that life was created somehow, without knowledge of how. That is faith. Even if you are atheist, because Faith is believing in something that cannot or has not been seen or proven."

I would agree that faith is believing in something that cannot or has not been seen (I would phrase it as "without evidence"). I don't have faith. When there's not evidence for something, I just say that I don't know.

Do we know how life arose? No, but we have evidence that points in certain directions about the mechanisms. 

Do we know how the universe began? No, there are mysteries there. But we know the universe was hot basically everywhere, and have physically seen evidence of that. So at least that much! (This question is may not even make sense to ask. Another phrasing would be, "What existed before time existed?" which instantly assumes that time exists. 

Do I know what happens when we die? I don't know, but all signs point to a cease of existence, and your atoms being reused over and over for millions of years to come. 

Do I know the meaning of life? Nope. I do not. That's okay. (Though I would argue this is a question that probably cannot even have an answer.)

I am very comfortable not knowing things. In my experience, so many things in the universe are hard and unintuitive to understand. That's okay. There may be things we can literally never know! Terrifying? Maybe! We will never know if there is some limit to our knowledge. Our knowledge will certainly increase as time goes on, though, assuming we don't destroy ourselves.

10 hours ago, FRENZEE said:

And, there was in fact a total solar (that lasted a long time because of the way the moon was rotating, making it one of the longest solar eclipses ever known) eclipse in Jerusalem around the same time that Christ was crucified. This shows that the solar eclipse was likely the three days of darkness following Christ's crucifixion and death. 

This is not true. The crucifixion happened around Passover. Passover, by definition, happens at a full moon (it's a lunar calendar, after all). Full moons happen when the Earth is between the sun and the moon, so it is very literally impossible for a solar eclipse to happen around Passover. 

On 5/7/2025 at 11:12 AM, FRENZEE said:

This is because I believe that the bible is correct, and in Genisis it says: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." -- "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." I encourage you to read Genisis 1-3, to see the entire creation of life and earth. That is all

This is a great example to what I was referring to about confidence with faith. "Why did this happen? Because I believe the Bible." This thread is not here to combat beliefs, and it is not my intent to do so. You are very much entitled to have the beliefs you. I merely bring this up because this is an example of how these types of thinking are very, very different. I believe absolutely nothing to the extent that you did just here. 

I actually know a lot about this and the science on Genesis (and its immense scientific inaccuracies if taken literally, which is certainly does not have to be), and if you would like to discuss it further, I am happy for anyone to PM me and I will discuss it at great length. If not, all good!

I'll probably take my leave in this thread. My intent is very much not to get in the way of people's beliefs, but people pinged me and talked about science, and science is all about the data, and we can all see the same data. But if anyone has questions about why I think what I do, please feel free to ask. 

(And if any religious person is under the impression I have faith in anything, in the same way Christians have faith that Jesus rose from the dead, I would love a very specific example! I am more than happy to re-evaluate any statement I made and examine what I am saying. As far as I can see, this is a totally foreign concept to me.)

I was a bit slackery with citations here, but to the best of my knowledge, every single scientific statement is accurate to the scientific consensus. If people are curious, I can find said sources. Let's do that in PMs, though. 

[-ACE- he/him]

23 hours ago, FRENZEE said:

I have noticed that many incredible events in the bible and book of Mormon have an explanation that can be proved by science. For example, someone (I don't remember who) made a program to predict when the next solar/lunar eclipse will happen. They then used that program to look back at the locations of the sun and the earth. And, there was in fact a total solar (that lasted a long time because of the way the moon was rotating, making it one of the longest solar eclipses ever known) eclipse in Jerusalem around the same time that Christ was crucified. This shows that the solar eclipse was likely the three days of darkness following Christ's crucifixion and death. I just wonder if anything like that happened with the flood. (Maybe the moon got closer to earth, causing the sea level to rise significantly?) 

I would like to correct myself here. It is not 3 days, but instead just 3 hours. 

I also have a question. What do you believe the book of Mormon was, and how did It come to be?

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

9 hours ago, FRENZEE said:

What do you believe the book of Mormon was, and how did It come to be?

Same way William Blake created his mythology: Humans just sometimes hallucinate wild stuff.