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 dictionary.com, 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.

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?

Fast Food Theology

This is an awesome video! This guy swears a lot, but he makes some awesome points.

A Balloon With A Hole In It

All through out my Mormon career, I was always told that a witness of the spirit is a more powerful and lasting testimony than actually seeing god, Jesus, or an angel. Naturally, this is why so many LDS people continue believing in their faith despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Robert D. Hales, in his article "How You Can Know", states that a testimony "makes a deep and lasting impression on the soul." New Era, August 2002, page 40. To see the entire article, please click here.

Richard G. Scott states, "A testimony is fortified by spiritual impressions that confirm the validity of a teaching..." and he later goes on to say, "...a testimony is not emotion." Ensign, November 2001, page 87. To see the entire article, click here.

It is statements like these that the LDS take to heart and repeat to each other. I heard it countless times. According to these articles, and many others like them, a testimony is a powerful witness of the "truth" and is more potent than evidence or even an eye-witness.

However, I have to question this idea of "lasting impression" because while they trump up a testimony on one hand, saying how powerful it is, on the other hand, they warn that a testimony, in spite of the fact that it is so powerful, can easily crumble. Consider these statements:

"Testimony isn’t something you have today and you are going to have always. A testimony is fragile. It is as hard to hold as a moonbeam. It is something you have to recapture every day of your life.” (President Harold B. Lee, Church News, July 15, 1972, p. 4)

"When a testimony is not growing, it is in danger of becoming weaker." (O. Leslie Stone, “Testimony,” New Era, Jul 1979, 4)

So is a testimony strong or isn't it? If a witness of the spirit is capable of leaving a "lasting impression", then why is it "as hard to hold as a moonbeam"?

As I stated above, I was often told that a spiritual witness is more powerful than actually seeing a heavenly being. Now, if I saw a heavenly being, I'm pretty damn sure that I would never forget it. There are certain things that are forever burned into my memory and I am quite sure that such a heavenly visitation would be one of them.

Now, if a witness of the spirit is even stronger than the memory of this heavenly visitor, then that must be a pretty damn strong testimony.

So that is why I am left to question. If testimony is so strong, why do church leaders constantly warn about how easy it is to lose your testimony? If a testimony is the only reliable source of truth, then why is it so weak and shaky? Only by constantly emersing yourself into LDS propaganda does your testimony not fade.

I have certain events in my life that are forever engrained into my memory. Even if I don't think about them very often, when I do, I can recall them with perfect clarity. I don't have to constantly struggle to remember it. I just remember. There is no need to visualize it on a daily basis for fear of losing it. It's there permanantly and it ain't going anywhere, even if I don't think about it every day. In fact, if I only think about it once a month or even once a year, it can still be recalled as clearly as the day it happened.

So if the "spirit" is even more impressionable than an actual memory of a life-changing event, I again ask the question: "Why is a testimony so fragile?"

If it really was as strong as they say it is, then there would be absolutely no danger, whatsoever, of losing it. But an LDS testimony, is either growing or shrinking. If you stop engaging in LDS practice, your testimony fades. It almost seems that in order to keep believing, you have to constantly remind yourself that you believe.

If believing something requires so much effort to gain and maintain, can it really be the truth?

Truth is truth and does not need to be constantly reinforced. If a certain fact or statement is true, than it shouldn't have to be constantly rehearsed in order to stay true.

The only real evidence of the truthfulness of the LDS gospel is their testimony gaining process. If all reason, evidence, and experience suggests otherwise, then the testimony is the fallback. It is the one thing that can't be proven false. In the LDS mind, since it can't be proven false, then it must be true by default.

Obviously, this is extremely flawed logic. I can't actually prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist either, but does that make him real by default?

In the game of Sorry, once you're in the safe zone, nothing can send you back to start. An LDS testimony is the "safe zone". Once everything else has failed, you can fall back on your testimony and be infallable.

The idea of testimony is the one thing that keeps the LDS church together. It keeps the members inline and paying. It debunks any and all evidence that Joseph Smith was a lying fraud.

So, despite their claims that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of their religion, it is actually the concept of testimony.The Book of Mormon can be proven false and a member can still believe in the divine mission of Joseph Smith by means of their testimony. Therefore, remove the element of testimony and the church has lost it's safety net.

Since this is the case, if it can be demonstrated that a testimony is not reliable evidence for the truthfulness of the church, then they have nothing to fall back on. I have done this by showing how the church requires people to constantly brainwash themselves into a testimony by repeating it again and again. If this was the means by which truth is learned, then it would be easy to "forget" that the sky is blue unless we repeat it over and over and over.

A testimony is nothing more than self brainwashing. Read the articles I have provided above and see if that is not the case. In order to have a testimony, you need to completely immerse yourself in LDS lifestyle. If you don't, it won't come.

You would think that the creater of the universe would make it a little easier to learn the absolute truth about his restored gospel. Not only that, but you would think that this absolute truth would be easy to keep believing. But the mere fact that if you stop the inflow of "I know it's true, I know it's true, I know it's true," then it goes away, says something. Something powerful.

Anything you have to keep reminding yourself to believe, isn't really worth all the effort! As I stated above, truth is truth and needs no justification. But an LDS testimony requires a ton of justification and continual input in order to stay alive.

An LDS testimony is like a balloon with a hole in it. As long as you keep blowing into the balloon, it will stay inflated. But as soon as you stop blowing, it will automatically deflate. Does truth really require you to constantly blow? Or should it stand on it's own?

Answer that question honestly and you will find your truth.

Mormon411

Have You Read the Bible?

I have a question to all the believers out there...

Have you read the Bible?

If you have, how can you possibly believe that god is good? The god of the Old Testament is angry, vengeful, jealous, ruthless, genocidal, etc. If someone gathered sticks on the Sabbath day, they were to be put to death. If a neighboring nation was full of unbelievers, it was okay to invade that country, in god's name, and kill every breathing thing.

I'm not going to waste my time thumbing through the OT to find every offensive passage. That is my challenge to you, believers. If you so strongly profess to believe in the Bible, don't you think you should actually read it? I'm not talking about random verses here and there... I'm talking about cover to cover.

Then the New Testament rolls around and this dictator of a god suddenly goes from genocide, murder, and rape to gentle, meek, and mild.

It sounds like two completely different gods! In the OT you could die for breaking the Sabbath day. Then Jesus turns around and justifies his own breaking of the Sabbath.

But isn't Jesus supposed to be the god of the OT? If he is the same yesterday, today, and forever, why such radical changes in views of the Sabbath and the change from the 'iron-fist' god to the 'meek-and-mild' god?

I would so much like to hear a believers response to this question/challenge. Why do the two books describe such different gods? Why would the god of the OT have sinners guts torn from their bodies and then Jesus turns around and eats with the sinners?

Then Jesus calls the Pharisees hypocrites for simply living the commandments of the OT.

Can't god make up his goddamn mind?

Believers, if you haven't read the Bible, maybe you'd better not! You'll probably lose your faith!

The Mormon Je$u$

Somehow, one of those little Jesus cards that the missionaries hand out ended up on my entertainment center. I have no idea how it got there. It's the one that offers a free DVD if you call. Naturally, this is just a way for them to get referrals and more converts.

Across the top of this card are printed the words: "Faith in Christ can help you resolve personal and family challenges."

Just what exactly is this statement implying? Let's analyze it and see, by common sense, if it really is true.

It seems to boldly be saying that unless you have faith in Jesus, you can't have a normal functioning life. Anyone who doesn't have faith in Christ will be unable to resolve their personal and family challenges. Is that true?

Let's go to a nation where the majority religion is not Christianity. How about Japan. According to this flyer, all Japanese families are running around in utter confusion, unable to resolve any problems. Because this is so, the problems keep piling up and just get worse and worse and worse. Because this is happening to every family that does not have Christ, (which would be almost every family in the entire country) the economy of Japan would quickly fall apart.

But is this what is happening in Japan? No. So the claim to need Jesus for family happiness and functionality is false.

But looking even deeper at this statement, reveals some pretty bad insite into the character of Jesus himself. He's supposedly our older brother, at least that's what Mormons believe.

Now what kind of a brother would stubbornly refuse to help his own siblings unless they profess him as their king? Only an asshole of a brother. For a person who is so full of love and mercy, Jesus sure has a lot of conditions that must be met before he will help you.

The Biblical Jesus sat and ate with sinners. A noble example. But the Jesus of Mormonism will only associate with you once you display your "faith" in him. And of course, that means pay him. If the Jesus of the Bible ever met the Jesus of Mormonism, he would kick his ass up one side and down the other! The Jesus of the Bible did not want money. But the Mormon Jesus sure does!

In fact, the Mormon Jesus wants skyscrapers, churches, temples, malls, hotels, ranches, and businesses.

From now on when referring to the Mormon Jesus, I will spell it

Je$u$.