Monday, May 25, 2009

The First Four Months of My Mission

I haven't talked about my mission much on this blog. I guess it's because I would rather forget most of it. I didn't like it. I didn't enjoy it. I did my time so I could have the proud title of RETURNED MISSIONARY.

Rules and regulations. Every minute of every day was detailed for us. The MTC wasn't too bad. There were just classes all day, every day. The pressure to confess unresolved past transgressions was intense! They really turned up the heat and the guilt. If you were serving unworthily, then your soul was in real danger of damnation. I had an unresolved issue with a past girlfriend, but damnation was better than getting sent home from your mission. I never confessed it until years later.

The real hell began once I arrived at my first assignment. My first companion, or trainer, was the drill sergeant from hell. He ate, drank, and slept the mission rules. He was so adamant on following the letter of every rule that I quickly grew to resent him. I'll try to describe the situation but I don't know if it's even possible to truly portray what it was like.

It started one day shortly after arriving when I sat down to write a letter. At the beginning of my mission, I received a lot of letters from family and friends. I figured that by replying to one or two a day would keep the reply pile small. My trainer quickly put an end to that. We were not to use any of the lords time writing letters, except on P-day. He gave me his lecture and then used the standard "will you?" tactic. "Will you only write letters on P-day?" When that bastard was in the shower, I would write letters. A weeks worth of letters meant hours on P-day, and I had better things to do than sit there and write letters all day!

From there it only got worse. The guy watched everything I did and was constantly there to tell me how wrong I was. He constantly had his hand on the telephone, threatening to call the mission president if I didn't conform to what he wanted. Afterall, it was me in the wrong because the mission rules were given to us by a true and living prophet. If you didn't follow all the rules, then you were in open rebellion against the prophet. Even though I knew the rules were bullshit, how could I argue against that and not get a label?

This was my reasoning... The church is really big on claiming that only their worthy members have the "spirit" to guide them. I grew up with the idea of following the spirit. So I get on a mission and the "spirit" was replaced with the rule book. I never heard, "follow the spirit" on my mission. It was always, "follow the rules." That was my first indication that the missionary program and the church in general were not run by inspiration.

I nearly had a nervous breakdown. I don't know how I survived for three months with this asshole dictator without breaking his damn nose. He was such a jerk, and that's putting it nicely.

I remember that one time, while praying, he actually said, "Please help Elder X (refering to me) to gain a testimony of the importance of closing his eyes during prayers." Yes, he actually said that. I never have been one to close my eyes in a prayer. So sue me. Besides how would that hypocrite know my eyes were open unless his eyes were open too? And if the Mormon god is so shallow that he will take the spirit from me and cast me into hell just for keeping my eyes open, then that god can go fuck himself! If I remember right, I did not say "amen" at the end of the prayer.

I endured manipulation of this sort daily from this asshole. I'm damn tempted to put his name here just to spite him. I never broke his nose for the fear of being sent home, but if I ever see that jerk now, I will smash his face in. I've never hated anyone until I met him. And I am a very gentle, non-violent person who would rather just walk away than make a big deal of something. But this guy is genuinely deserving of a good face pounding, and I would be thrilled to inflict it.

I'll tell a few more stories about my time with him, but keep in mind that these types of things happened every day.

Elder Cocksucker was so into the rules, that he would make little posters of them and hang them all over the apartment walls. Remember his idea that none of the lords time be wasted? That included any type of housekeeping. Dishes? Forget it. He wouldn't let me wash the dishes but once a week (on P-day when I had a million other non-godly errands to get done). Naturally, they would pile up in the kitchen. I finally got tired of all the dirty dishes and I made a little poster of my own. It simply said, "Never go to bed with dirty dishes in the sink."

Suddenly this little poster became law! If I left so much as a spoon in the sink, he would hound me to go wash it. It suddenly became MY job to wash the dishes every single day. Well, one day I went to bed having left a single cup in the sink. He tried to get me out of bed to go wash it. Obviously he didn't understand the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Anyway, I didn't wash the cup.

The next morning I woke up to find that he had taken down the poster and had written across it diagonally with a permanent marker, "DISHONORED". I was so furious I could have killed him. What a pompus jerk! What a hypocrite!

The mission rules stated that we were to go to bed at 10:30 PM. Well, one day I was so exausted that I went to bed as soon as we got home (my personal dictator had us out knocking on doors from sun-up to sun-down). Naturally, we had companionship prayer every night before bed. Well guess what? This jerk wouldn't pray with me because it wasn't 10:30 yet. That's right. Because it wasn't 10:30.

Well, when 10:30 rolls around I'm good and asleep. He suddenly comes bouncing into the room, turns on the light, wakes me up, and actually expects me to get out of bed to pray with him. I told him to go ahead and pray and I would stay in bed. Oh no! That's not going to happen! He wants me out of bed and on my knees. Well, sorry, but I'm just not going to.

To make a very long night short, this jerk carried on for hours and hours trying to manipulate me out of bed. He did everything he could to prevent me from going back to sleep: keeping the light on, banging on furniture, singing loudly. He carried on for hours! He was so used to being in complete control that he would not let me win. But I refused to get out of bed. I think he finally stopped after about three or four hours. The next morning he couldn't understand why I was upset with him and wouldn't talk.

Imagine living with an asshole of this magnitude for three months, unable to defend yourself because he was nobly "following the prophet". This guy turned his priesthood authority into a nightmare and I am sure that he terrorized the poor girl that he later married.

Folks, this kind of behaviour is what you get when you turn your will completely over to the church. They will take every single one of your freedoms and turn you into a fucking robot. That's what they do in the missionary program. That's what they do at BYU. Give the church your will, and they will take it all.

This is why I am horrified at the thought of Mormonism spreading across the entire world. Just imagine if Mormons ran the government. We would have no freedom. In the name of righteousness, they would take away all our choices in order to "save" us.

In the pre-existance a similar form of government was proposed by Satan. Really makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Those Stupid, Gay Missionary Planners

As I was preparing to go on a mission, a letter from the church informed me that I did not need to purchase a planner; the church would provide one for me. I thought that was pretty cool until I saw it for the first time...

It was a stupid sheet of blue paper which had seven columns, one for each day of the week. Each column had the hours of the day on which we could write down our appointments. This piece of paper was then folded up and placed into the shirt pocket just behind our name tag.

I thought that was the most gay thing I had ever seen!

I never used it. Whenever my dorky companion would pull out his blue sheet of paper on which to make an appointment, I just felt embarrased. All the church could provide was a stupid sheet of blue paper!

I don't know if they still use them now. I guess it doesn't matter. I just always thought that the church could have done a little better than a stupid blue sheet of paper.

While writing my last post about interviews, I had the memory of these planners because during interviews with the MP, there was also an interview with this geeky dude. His one and only concern was that the missionaries were using our blue planners. At every interview he would ask to see our planners and make sure that we were using them. Then he would bear his testimony about the importance of using them. I always felt it was sooooo stupid. It's a sheet of paper. It's not like the gates of hell will devour the earth if we're not using them. But this guy really thought it would.

My mission was the biggest eye-opener about how the church really works and how it isn't inspired at all!

I Always Hated Interviews

Interviews, interviews, interviews. I hated them in all their forms. Even as a believer I hated them. Each time you moved up in rank in the priesthood (primary to deacon, deacon to teacher, teacher to priest, etc.) you get to have a nice chat with the bishop in which he would pry into your personal life. You even had to have a worthiness interview in order to be baptized. Now wait a minute! Why do I need a worthiness interview if the LDS believe that children under 8 are sinless?

Remember those stupid dances? You had to have a damn interview just to be able to go to them. The bishop who interviewed me for one such dance asked me if I masturbate.

Then there is the temple recommend interview. It used to be every year; now they have made it every two years. Why the need for the repetative questions? If I'm active and paying and participating, it should be pretty obvious that I believe, or at least appear to believe. I mean, hell, you could lie your ass off in any of these damn interviews and somehow the bishop never seemed to catch it.

Not that I had to lie much to pass, but when that perverted fucker asked me if I masturbate, I told that bastard NO, which, of course, was a lie. His spirit of discernment must have been on vacation that day because I got my dance recommend.

PPI or Personal Priesthood Interview - this is where you meet with the elders quorum president and he basically asks you all the questions that the nosey bishop asks. Hometeaching, activity, personal prayer, scripture study, callings, meetings, yada, yada, yada. I especially hated these interviews because the EQP would always make me commit to some huge project, the details of which I can't remember.

Then there was the mission interviews. I swear, at least a damn dozen! I had to have an interview to become an elder. I had to have an interview to get my patriarchial blessing. I had to have an interview to determine if I was worthy to submit my mission papers. Once I got my call I had to have another interview to make sure I was still worthy. Then I had an interview just before getting set apart as a missionary. The part that really urked me was the fact that it was the same bishop asking me the same damn questions every time. WTF! Couldn't he just ask me if I'm still worthy and leave it at that? Not only that, but the damn stake president had to interview me too.

What is the point of double interviews, such as for a recommend? If I'm going to lie to the bishop, then I'm going to lie to the stake president too. If the bishop didn't catch my lie, then the damn stake president probably won't either. It's just a stupid formality and a waste of time.

Then you get on your mission and you have to have monthly interviews with the mission president. I never felt any special connection to my president. I saw the interviews as nothing but a waste of time. On top of that, we were required to write a weekly letter to the president. I didn't always do it but when I did, I just put some bullshit on the paper and mailed it off.

I'll never forget the idiot who officially released me from missionary service. Naturally, before he can release you, he has to interview you. Why? I have no damn clue. If I fail the interview, are you going to force me to remain a missionary and serve two more years? I remember the idiot asking me if I had still obeyed all the mission rules since returning home. What the hell does that question have to do with anything? If I didn't, what are you going to do? Not release me? Send me back? I lied and answered that, yes, I had. His amazing power of discernment somehow missed that one.

Then you get back and want to get married so you have to go through more interviews in order to make sure that you haven't been doinking the girl you want to marry in the temple. You would think that a current temple recommend would suffice, but no. You have to get a special recommend to get married. Even with a current recommend, you can't get married without the bishops (and possibly stake presidents) permission.

It's no wonder, looking back, that I hated interviews. I was always uncomfortable. Always! Even though I really had nothing to hide, I was just uncomfortable with them. I never liked having someone pry into my personal life. At the time, however, I thought that by enduring them that I was earning my way into heaven. I'll be damned on the day I ever set foot into a bishops office again!

Thursday, May 21, 2009


(Isn't she fucking hot?!?!)

Here is a problem that I've been wondering about lately. I hope my readers (if any) will pardon my ignorance on the topic. If I state something out of place, it was not done intentionally.

Let's talk about sex. Or even more specific, homosexuality.

The debate: choice or born that way? I would have to say that I think personally, that they are born that way. I mean, if I had to make the choice between making love to a man or a woman (being a man myself) why in the hell would I choose a man?

That being said, here's the problem... if homosexuals are born that way, there must be a gene for it. If there is a gene for it, then it must have somehow evolved. So that leaves me asking the question: What is the evolutionary advantage of being homosexual?

As far as I can think, there is none. It would seem to me that natural selection would favor heterosexuals. I mean, a homosexual couple is obviously unable to produce offspring, thus halting the passing of the homosexual gene.

It doesn't work on the creationist view either. If god created people and doesn't want them to be gay, then obviously he wouldn't have given some of them the "gay" gene.

I've got no doubt that it's not a choice and yet my logic tells me that it's not nature either. Input anyone?

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

How the Lost 116 Pages Prove Joseph Smith Did Not Translate the Book of Mormon

We all know the story, right? But for those who might not, I'll quickly retell it.

Joseph Smith and Martin Harris had been busy working on the translation of the golden plates. When the Book of Lehi was completed, the translated document had 116 pages. Harris was working with Smith, and even financially contributing, very much against the will of his wife. Because his wife was against the whole idea, Harris wanted to take the Book of Lehi to her and convince her that it was all true.

Harris asked Smith if he could take the document to show his wife. Smith inquired of the lord and was told a firm "no". Not satisfied with this answer, Harris asked again. Smith inquired of the lord again and still the answer was "no". Harris asked a third time and this time the lord gave the hesitant okay.

Harris took the document and that was the last time Smith ever saw it.

No one knows for sure what happened to it. What most likely happened was that Harris' wife took it and hid it, stating that if the work was really true, then Smith could just re-translate the Book of Lehi and the second translation would be word-for-word with the first one.

Most likely, Joseph Smith realized this and knew that he was in a world of shit. Obviously, he couldn't reproduce the document word-for-word if he was making it all up! Perplexed with what to do, he stopped translation claiming that because of his unwillingness to obey the lord, his translating ability was temporarily taken away. Naturally, Smith needed some time to figure out what the hell to do with out coming out in the end looking like a huge jackass.

What to do? What to do? Smith, no doubt, had many a sleepless night trying to figure out how to get out of this situation. Finally he had an idea: a revelation!

From the heading of section 10 of the Doctrine and Covenants:

Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, in the summer of 1828. Herein the Lord informs Joseph of alterations made by wicked men in the 116 manuscript pages from the translation of the “Book of Lehi,” in the Book of Mormon. These manuscript pages had been lost from the possession of Martin Harris, to whom the sheets had been temporarily entrusted. The evil design was to await the expected retranslation of the matter covered by the stolen pages, and then to discredit the translator by showing discrepancies created by the alterations. That this wicked purpose had been conceived by the evil one, and was known to the Lord even while Mormon, the ancient Nephite historian, was making his abridgment of the accumulated plates, is shown in the Book of Mormon (The Words of Mormon 1: 3–7).

Joseph, of course, claimed that he could indeed retranslate the Book of Lehi. But the evil and conspiring men would have changed his document and then shown the two translations to be different. So what does Joseph Smith do? He just continues on from where he left off and added into the Book of Mormon later that this whole scheme was known by god thousands of years before it happened and that he had commanded his prophets to include an abridged version of the Book of Lehi. That way the material could still be included but since it was abridged, it would not be word-for-word.

Sneaky Joe! His convenient excuse for not retranslating was because the evil men would have changed his original text (stupid) and would show the discrepancies. That's stupid, of course, because that was not their intention at all. They simply wanted to see him actually retranslate and come up with the same text. Since he was making it all up, he couldn't do that.

The very fact that Joseph was unable to simply retranslate the Book of Lehi shows that he had no golden plates from which to translate. If he would have been able to produce a word-for-word retranslation, then that would have given his story much credibility. But since he knew it was impossible, he had to think of a convenient excuse as to why he couldn't retranslate.

This proves he was making it all up. If his enemies had tried to alter his original document, it would have been obvious. They wouldn't have been able to pull it off. Their plan instead, was to test Smith. If he really was translating an ancient document, then a retranslation would have been no problem. In fact, it would have been amazing evidence that his story was true! He failed the test miserably.

If the lord had known in advance that this was Satans plan, then he would have warned Joseph beforehand and instructed Smith to not let the 116 pages out of his sight. And even if the pages did still manage to disappear, couldn't the lord simply tell Joseph who had them and where they were?

It seems that both Smith and the lord were entirely duped in this experience. A fast thinking Smith pulled it off somehow, but in the end, it proves he was a fraud, unable to simply retranslate the Book of Lehi and show the world that he was telling the truth.

Smith couldn't reproduce it word-for-word. Even if I tried, without looking, to reproduce this article word-for-word, just minutes after I have written it, I couldn't. It would have the same general message, but there is no way it would be an exact copy. I can't do it. A true prophet of god couldn't do it.

Friday, May 15, 2009

The Funniest T-Shirt I've Ever Seen

I was walking in the mall today and I noticed a t-shirt on display in a store window. It was simple but funny as hell and I can't believe I never thought of it. It was a Salt Lake City souvenir store. The shirt simply read as follows:


I laughed my ass off!

Wednesday, May 13, 2009


Three guys make it to the Pearly Gates and request to be admitted. Peter takes each one aside for a quick worthiness interview. He asks each if they were religious.

The first guy tells him he's a Catholic. "Have you ever used contraceptives contrary to the Pope's decree?" Peter asks him. The guy nods ashamedly and Peter sends him off to Hell.

The second guy is a Jew. "Have you ever eaten pork?" Peter wants to know. A nod, and Hell claims its second victim of the day.

Then Peter turns to the third guy. "And what's your religion?"

"I'm an ex-Mormon!"

"Oh, then you've already been through Hell. Come on in!"

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Intelligent Design? Random Chance? Evolution by Natural Selection?

Anything complex must have been designed. The earth and it's inhabitants are complex so therefore, they must have been designed. Only god could be the designer.

Creationists like this argument because it seems to be irrefutable. The complexity issue is further argued using the 474 argument: If a windstorm blew through a junk yard, what are the odds that it would assemble a fully functional 474 jumbo jet? The odds are so nill that it might as well be zero. Therefore, since something as complex as the human body could not have possibly happened by random chance, god must have designed it.

This appears to be a good argument, until you stop and think about it.

Anything capable of designing something complex must be equally, if not more, complex. Therefore, if the argument by design is valid, then god must also have a designer.

What are the odds that a being as complex as god is supposed to be suddenly popped into existance and automatically knew everything and had unlimited power? I'd say it makes the odds of the 474 look pretty good.

Christians believe that god has always existed and had no designer. So their own argument for creation by intelligent design actually works against them. To quote the great Richard Dawkins, "God is the ultimate 474."

Intelligent design. Random chance. Evolution by natural selection. Which is it?

We can rule out random chance because creationists and evolutionists alike agree that it is not just random chance. I am going to propose an idea: that it is both intelligent design and evolution.

Before I can explain how this idea works, I must first explain what natural selection is. According to, natural selection is defined as follows: the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations.

Pretty simple and clear. Those organisms better suited to the environment have a better chance of surviving long enough to reproduce and pass that advantage on to the offspring. Those organisms not as suited to the environment will usually die before they can pass on that weakness to their offspring.

So simple: survival of the fittest. Life itself favors the stronger organism. Life itself naturally adapts to favor the organism more suited to survive. Life, by its very existance, must continually improve and adapt or it will be wiped out. This is so simple that it's almost funny.

Life itself is the intelligent designer. Life seeks to preserve itself. The stronger survives and reproduces. The weaker dies before it can reproduce. The bad seed, so to speak, is automatically weeded out. There is no god that makes it happen; it happens automatically. If it didn't happen, life would quickly cease to exist.

Let me give you a working example. You know what one of the worst things we could have invented? Eye glasses. Now days, if someone can't see they go to the eye doctor and get a pair of glasses. This quick and easy solution is actually a very bad thing for our species.

Let's go back a couple thousand years before the technology existed to make corrective eye wear. If you couldn't see, you couldn't hunt or fight. Natural selection would quickly see to it that you didn't survive very long. The gene for bad eyesight would quickly be weeded out because those carrying the gene for it would most likely die before they could reproduce and pass that weakness on to their children.

Those with good eyes could survive longer and not only reproduce but pass along the gene for good, strong eyes.

But now, eye glasses are threatening our species because the gene for bad eyes is now being passed on to generation after generation. It's no big deal. We just get glasses and we pass that bad gene along.

Imagine that sometime in the future we have a huge natural disaster and the ability to make eye glasses is lost. Human beings will be in a world of shit. Those who can't see will be at the mercy of the elements.

It might sound like a trivial idea, but the fact is that eye glasses could eventually lead to the end of the human race. If a blind species can't see to fight or hunt, then they are pretty much toast. If we are not all eventually destroyed by nuclear war, the next greatest threat to our very existance is the convenient eye glass.

Natural selection is brutal and merciless to the weak. If it wasn't, we would have never gotten to the stage we are at. The ability to think and reason has given humans the advantage and has made us the dominant species on the planet. What if another species gained the ability to think and reason? There would be war until one of the species (probably the stronger one) was left. This is most likely the reason why humans are the only species with that ability. We don't want to share; we want it all for ourselves.

Evolution by natural selection by intelligent design. There you have it.

Religion: Faith & Obedience

Let's talk about faith and obedience.

According to the dictionary, faith is defined as: belief that is not based on proof.

So religion expects me to believe something just because they say so? Just because the Bible says so? I don't think so!

As Richard Dawkins points out, religion makes faith out to be something noble. You believe in spite of no evidence. Wow! What a great person you are. God will surely bless you for believing in him even though you can't see him.

The problem with belief, according to religious fanatics, is that if you don't believe exactly as they do, then you're going to hell anyway. So if you believe, but hold even one incorrect belief, then god will shove you into hell with all the other unworthy heathens.

That god is nothing but an asshole!

So on top of your belief, which better damn well be the right one, you must give unquestioning obedience to this god that you believe in with no proof. This invisible god requires you to suffer before you will get anything. Life is a test and in order to pass, you must prove your belief by obedience and sacrifice.

This is getting way bizarre! First I have to believe with no proof. Then I have to prove my belief by being miserable. God has set up a million commandments that all must be followed in order to pass this test. They are designed, on purpose, to be difficult and miserable so that god can reward those who are strong enough to prove themselves.

What? I have to prove myself to a god who gives no proof to me? If that doesn't arouse your suspicion, it should!

Basically, god is like a lottery ticket, nothing but a gamble. You put all this effort into something that might be true (and probably isn't) and just hope for the best. What if all this faith and obedience turns out to be a lie? That means you just wasted your entire life for nothing.

Oh, it isn't nothing! You lined the pocket and gave free labor to some business man wearing a prophets costume. He will be happy to praise you for all your faith and obedience. But where is god? God only exists in the Bible, in the mouth of a con-man, and in your mind.

Take my advice. Don't take things on faith, especially things that have life-long consequences. Religion is just a business, a legal con, and you are it's unsuspecting victim. The problem is that you have to wait until you die to cash in on the reward. Well, once you're dead, you can't come back and demand a refund of your life or your money if it turns out to be a lie.

Don't waste your life following a lie.

The Evil Internet

Recent studies are revealing that the state most addicted to porn is Utah. What gives? Isn't Utah gods state? Isn't Utah the home of gods one and only true church? Aren't the righteous priesthood holders supposed to be pure and clean?

Instead, priesthood holders across the state are jerking off to digital porn. They are taking breaks from church lesson and talk preparation to sneek in a peek of a large breasted porn star.

I'm just sitting here laughing my ass off!

These hypocrites watch porn and then go to church and condemn it. Remember in the past how I've said that in order to be Mormon, you have to be a liar? Well, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

But if you think about it, can you blame them? Mankind is naturally horny. Men especially, like to see images of naked women. Why? I don't know. We just do. The Mormon church will then tell all of these men that it is a sin to even be horny. So you've got all these dudes running around being horny as hell and being pissed off at themselves for being horny. This urge is strong and eventually the guy gives in and satisfies himself.

Of course, he now feels extremely guilty. Remember that sexual sin is only slightly less serious than murder. Naturally, because of the nature of the game, the man will be mocked and disfellowshipped if his sexual "problem" comes to light. So he keeps it a secret; jacking off in secret and condemning it in the open.

So Utah men are the most sexually frustrated people in the world. This is the reason why Utah has so much porn consumption and yet also has one of the loudest voices against it.

This statistic, naturally, reflects itself directly upon the church, which makes them look like the pack of hypocrites that they are. So it is no wonder that lately church leaders are speaking out about the evils of the internet. Not only porn lurking there to ensnare you, but also evil, lying, decieving apostates like me. We are here and our only goal is to poison your mind so that you will be as miserable as we are (insert evil sounding laugh here).

It has absolutely nothing to do with intellectual honesty.

Why do you think Mormons get married so damn young? It is because they are horny as hell and the only way to get a legal piece of ass is to marry her first. That way you can get some T&A and not go to hell for it.

I'll be honest, right here, right now. That's why I got married. Wanted some ass and didn't want to go to hell for it.

What Function Does Religion Serve?

As long as man has had the ability to think and reason, he has been asking the question, "Why?". Man is naturally curious as to how the world works.

Ancient religions, now referred to as myths, attempted to answer the questions that man could not otherwise explain. For example, why does the sun travel across the sky every single day? Ancient man was not aware that the sun does not travel across the sky. Instead, the earth rotates, giving the illusion of the sun traveling across the sky. But their rudimentary explanation was that a god must drag it across the sky behind his chariot.

Of course this is ridiculous. Everyone knows now how it really happens. Even modern believers in current religions accept the scientific explanation of how the sun "travels across the sky".

This example, and others like it, were not viewed in ancient times as just stories. They were viewed as the actual truth. Of course, the stories of ancient mythology are looked upon today as interesting stories that were completely wrong in the way they explained the world.

And yet, today, in this age of information, religion is the modern equivalent of ancient mythology. What ancient mythology and modern religion have in common is that they both attempt, poorly, to explain our world.

Modern religion attempts to explain how the world came to exist and how it came to be inhabited by humans, plants, and animals.

It seems that man, whether he be ancient or modern, likes to use "god" as the fill-in-the-blank. Whenever a question does not have an obvious answer, god must have done it.

As science advances and begins to answer those questions that were previously believed to be unanswerable, god is slowly squeezed out of the picture. We no longer need god to explain most of the questions we have.

Religionists will argue that science hasn't answered all the questions and therefore, god must still exist. That is true, for now. But science is advancing and questions are being answered. What we didn't know yesterday, we know today. What we don't know today, we will probably know tomorrow. I would wager that it won't be long before god is completely unnecessary. Even questions like the origion of life will be explained by science.

Belief in god is old school. We no longer need god. Let the ignorant believe in god.

How likely is it that one dude up in the sky who has always existed and has always known everything is capable of clapping his hands and a universe suddenly appears? When put like that, it sounds pretty stupid, does it not? Well, that is what religion teaches is the origin of the universe.

Religion is based upon ancient mans' uneducated guesses. Turns out they were wrong in everything.

In 1,000 years from now, Christianity will be looked back upon as nothing more than another myth. Good bye, god!

The God Delusion

I just finished reading the book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. It's an amazing book and is presented in easy-to-understand language. Very clear arguments lay out the case that god most certainly does not exist.

Dawkins focuses not only on Christianity, but all religions that worship the god of the Old Testament including, Christianity, Judaism, & Islam.

I highly recommend that everyone, believer or not, read this book. It is available in your local library.

One interesting fact that Dawkins points out is that the more educated a person is, the more likely they will be an atheist.

That's a very interesting fact. If god created the world, then one would think that an objective study of that world would only more clearly reveal the nature of god. This objective study of our world is called science. But instead of reveal the nature of god as described in the Bible, science continually does the opposite.

For example, the earth was not created in seven days or periods 6,000 years ago. Science has shown that the earth is about 4 billion years old. This completely discredits the creation hypothesis.

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection shows that humans, plants, and animals were not created but instead have evolved from a common, sea-faring ancester.

So the more a person learns about the world that god created, the less likely that person is to believe in god.

Religion is dying. People no longer need it to explain our world. Science does that.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Mormonism Destroys Families

On many levels, Mormonism destroys families. As pro-family as the church claims to be, their actions tell an entirely different story.

Consider the convert who, despite being shunned by his family, decides to join the Mormon church. He is told by his family that if he becomes a Mormon, they will dis-own him. The church gladly takes this convert.

Now, if the church was really pro-family, what would they do in this example? They would tell this convert to remain in his religion so that he could have peace with his family. If, at some point in the future, the rest of the family decides to join, then the church should welcome all of them together.

This convert is then publically praised for being valiant enough to leave his family to join the church.

Now let's say that some time passes and this new convert has managed to patch up his familial relationships. Presently, he decides to get married in the temple. Then comes the next blow to the converts family: you're not welcome inside our precious temple.

The converts family is actually forbidden from witnessing the wedding of their own son. The LDS church is so full of themselves that non-member family members are not even allowed to enter the building.

Mormons are so goddamn arrogant! If it was really the true church, would it forbid family members and other loved ones from participating in and witnessing the marriage ceremony?

On every LDS building (with the exception of the temple) is the phrase, "visitors welcome". Is that really true? The only reason a visitor would be welcome is so that they can do everything they can to convert him. But if he has no intention of joining the church, is he really welcome? No. In fact, they would rather not have him around because he might influence them with his worldly thinking.

Then to top it all off, this convert has been in the church a long time and has a little Mormon family of his own. Presently, he reads some real Mormon history and leaves the church. His wife goes to the bishop for "council" and he instructs her to divorce him for the simple reason that he is no longer a believing member. So, once again, a family is torn apart simply because Mormons are so very intolerant of any other beliefs.

Isn't it about time... that the LDS church practice what they preach?