Trying to reason with some TBM folks on Facebook. Conclusion: Futile!

This is a conversation that took place with a facebook acquaintance and her TBM friends. Try not to pull your hair out or bang your head against a wall while reading. This may thread may cause serious brain cramps and isn't recommended if you are easily susceptible to such. I'm posting this here for entertainment purposes, and to remind me the waste of time that it is to try and reason with these people.

(Facebook Status)
Sue: Atheism and Humanism are religions. They have no standard to offer in creation of a free society, upon which the masses can agree to be governed. Our Constitution offered the 10 commandments and common sense. But sense isn't as common today after generations of public schooling have indoctrinated us to ungodly concepts against the laws of nature. The only way back to freedom is repentence.
James Paul
Very well stated. Destruction of morality was the death of society.
Yesterday at 9:36am
Diane Anderson
When will we stop trying to reinvent the wheel so-to-speak- and go with the
ways that bring happiness? God has it figured out. Just do it HIs
way!!! It's the only way that really works. It's not so hard.
Yesterday at 9:36am
David Yu-lin Chiu
they are cults -- RE-LIG-ION is about AGAIN-CONNECT-ING to God... don't cede good words to abuse
Yesterday at 9:46am
Micah McAllister
Micah McAllister
I do agree that the US government needs to repent in the sense that they
need to return to the constitutional roots that this nation was founded
upon, maintaining and defining the constitutionality of any and all
laws that pass the body of Congress. It is our responsibility as The
People to elect and hold our representatives to this charge, which hopefully comes to fruition this coming election more so than any recent elections of the past decade and prior.

While you might be able to lump atheists and humanists into a common
demographic of folks who don't believe God exists do to the lack of
repeatable evidence, they are no more or less diverse nor moral/immoral
than any religious groups I've come across. I feel safe in stating this
as I have hundreds of atheist and humanist friends who value honesty,
love, commitment, kindness and all of the virtues involved in treating
others with respect, as any religious person. They are less of a cult
than any religion, as cults have exclusive devotion to the leader
(prophet, spiritual guru, God etc), while atheists don't have any such
leaders or dogmatic creeds. They are free thinkers who primarily
formulate their opinions based on common logic and repeatable evidence.

As to the constitution, many of the more prominent founding fathers were
Deists, which today would nearly equate to atheistic views. They were
men of reason, well read and influenced by Thomas Paine's book "The Age
of Reason" which is an expose on the fallacies and illogic of the
bible. You can't find the 10 commandments in the Constitution, at least
not the majority of them. It is not a Christian document and is
separate from religion via it's own text (1st Amendment). In 1797 the
US Congress ratified the Treaty of Tripoli which boldly proclaimed:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of
enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and
as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility
against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no
pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

(more on that topic here:
Yesterday at 10:04am ·
James Paul
You have obviously been educated since the days of the removal of true
history from the schools, which began in earnest about 1920.
Yesterday at 10:18am
Micah McAllister
Micah McAllister
Unless you were born before 1920 James, I'd say you were likely educated since
then too. Find me an appeal to God and the bible in the Constitution
and I'll take back my statement, and I'm not taking about "The
Declaration of Independence", which isn't a governing document.
Yesterday at 10:21am ·
Sue Venable
OH YES IT IS. The Declaration IS the founding document of this nation. The
Constitution was not written for several years later, after we fought
for our Freedom based upon the principles expressed in the Declaration
of Independence.

But here, before their signatures, they dated the Constitution in two ways. They did not have to. They proclaimed
right here their mutual intent!

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States
of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed
our Names."

The year of OUR LORD...

But they also do not claim that they are CREATING a nation by this
document, but claim that the beginning of the nation was the signing of
the Declaration of Independence: "Independence of the United States of
America the Twelfth".
Yesterday at 11:13am
Micah McAllister
Micah McAllister
Granted Sue, the Declaration of Independence does have two reverences to God
("the laws of nature and of nature's God" and "that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ..."). However, neither
of these references detail a God akin to the Christian fatherly figure.
In fact, referencing God with the term "Nature's God" appeals much more to Deistic type beliefs, which Thomas Jefferson was a believer of.

As to the date referencing "The year of OUR LORD"; this was a common
method of dating in the 1700's and can no more be used as an argument
to the foundation of America as a Christian nation than the use of
pagan terms and Gods in the Constitution (January from the two-headed
Roman god, Janus, and Sunday from the word Sunne, which refers to the
Saxon Sun god) could be used to establish America as a Pagan nation. Do
you want to go down that road? (

While I disagree as to the how and why America came to establish the
Constitution, I am in complete agreement as to the dire situation which
we are currently in (NWO, Military Industrial Complex, Government power
grabs etc) and that to fix it we need to restore constitutional
government and money systems (AKA, kick out the Federal Reserve and big
Yesterday at 11:34am ·
James Paul
My history teacher was born about 20 years after the Civil War. She taught
truths that contradicted the textbooks which had been written in the
20'and 30's.
I knew 3 of my great grandfathers who were born around the close of the Civil War. My research and study of history began in
earnest about 1960.

You will find answers to your questions if you can obtain and read the minutes of the Federal Convention where the arguments, compromises and deliberations including the request for
prayer to open each session of the convention are mentioned. You may
even learn that contrary to govt school teaching, James Madison was not
the father of the constitution.
Yesterday at 11:53am
Micah McAllister
Micah McAllister
James and Sue, my argument isn't that the majority of the founders weren't
religious and/or Christian, but that the Constitution and Declaration
of Independence do not of themselves appeal to the Christian God nor
specifically to any biblical commandments or beliefs, nor do they
establish Christianity as the national religion, which would go directly
against the 1st Amendment. The founders knew of the dangers of religion
controlling and influencing government and vice versa, the free choice
of religion by the people. Thus to the best of their ability, the
Constitution established a secular government that to this day does not
appeal to any one God or religious text.
Yesterday at 12:01pm ·
Sue Venable
But there IS no reference to any Pagan God, ONLY TO THE LORD BORN, or
believed to have been born, 1787 years prior to that day! And it was to
"OUR" Lord. And they chose to date it in this manner when several other
methods were available to them and they used another ONE of those as
well. Yes, it was common, AMONG CHRISTIANS, to date things in that manner. I wonder why... IT was not common in lands that were not inhabited by Christians!

And it says that they considered it to be SELF EVIDENT, common sense, that we were CREATED.

It is modern history rewriters with an agenda who proclaim Jefferson to be
a diest! NOT JEFFERSON. He proclaimed himself to be a Christian. Show
me a single quote anywhere in which he claimed to be a Diest!

You have been duped.
Yesterday at 12:02pm
Sue Venable
Micah, you are simply mistaken. The Bible was quoted extensively in the
writing of the Constitution. They prayed for help in writing it,
whether as a group and/or as individuals. They also quoted extensively,
Christian authors. And though Cicero, another great contributor of it's
principles, was not a Christian, he had observed the Laws of Nature to come up with a belief system very close to that of Christianity.

The very idea of private ownership is an inverse of "Thou shalt not steal".
If it is wrong to steal, then there must be a right of the individual
to own. If slavery is wrong, then there must be a right of an
individual to own his own labor and the results thereof. These were
founding principles of the Constitution taken from the Bible and most
all of it is. The idea of the power at the hands of the smallest unity
of government comes from Jethro's words to Moses.
Yesterday at 12:09pm
Micah McAllister
Micah McAllister
If Thomas Jefferson was Christian any time in his life, he must have
repented and apostatized at some point if you consider these quotes:

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme
being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the
fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may
we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United
States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us
the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of
human errors."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not
the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in
moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819

"If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is
pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their
virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful
that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks
have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books
relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain
much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there
is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an
extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very
inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out
diamonds from dunghills."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he
must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Yesterday at 12:15pm ·
Sue Venable
And it matters, because it is a standard for all. I listen to the standard
of the Humanists, made so by our public schools, and there is no
agreement and nothing upon which to base any standard that we could all
agree on and that would be a constant. Their standards are easily
changed with any whim or new charismatic leader.

We have to have ... ONE standard by which good and evil are judged and that Standard is the 10
commandments added to a little common sense of harming others.

In the common law there are basically two. DO that which you have promised
to do in contract and harm no one else or their property. These are
based upon the Right and Wrong of the Bible. But this is also an over
simplification, because there is one more inherent in the system. All
creation of new law must be unanimous, all acts of government must have
been accepted unanimously at least in some point in time. This was done
for the Declaration of Independence. No State could be forced to rebel.
No human can be forced to obey, or he is NOT FREE. But his life can be
taken for taking someone else's. And he can be "outlawed" for refusal
to abide by the decision of a court.
Yesterday at 12:19pm
Vladimir Kornea
The United States were constituted to protect the moral principle of
individual rights. Ayn Rand, an atheist, was a champion of individual
rights, and regarded the U.S. as the first *moral* country. Study her
thought if you are looking to rest your case for freedom on something
other than faith in God.
Yesterday at 12:19pm
Sue Venable
There is nothing but Faith in God which can save this nation. Atheism is a
denial of the obvious, often based upon the mistakes of man in defining
or behaving according to the real principles which God has tried to
teach to men. Men have selective hearing. Ayn Rand is no exception.
Yesterday at 12:22pm
Sue Venable
In the end, God wins. Doing things any other way, but God's way will
eventually end in destruction. He gives us plenty of leeway for many
years. That is so that we can learn and grow. But in the end, His Ways
are those of eternity. Men's ways are limited to this world, this
temporary world.
Yesterday at 12:24pm
Vladimir Kornea
Sue, to rest one's case on faith is to admit that reason is on the side of
one's opponents. Individual rights created this country, and individual
rights can save it, but not if we try to defend them on the basis of
religious faith.
Yesterday at 12:27pm
James Paul
Thomas Jefferson died just 3 years, 9 months and 2 days before the true church of Jesus Christ was restored to the earth.
Interestingly enough, his death was on July 4.
Yesterday at 12:32pm
Sue Venable
It takes a WHOLE HELL of a lot more faith to believe that what we see
around us came from nothing with NO intelligent design than to believe
in truth and God. LOL
Yesterday at 12:40pm
Sue Venable
Faith in nothing is totally unfounded. Faith in Christ is rooted in what can be seen and felt and known.
Yesterday at 12:41pm
Sue Venable
I once had a great deal of faith in what I was taught, but then I found
all kinds of holes in it. However, it taught me to seek to know from
the Source of all. Now, when I have questions, I go tot he source for
answers and I know the source to go to and receive answers. I no longer
base my faith on teachings, I receive knowledge from the Source. An
atheist, on the other hand, denies the obvious and lives with his
Yesterday at 12:44pm
James Paul
The govt schools teach freedom FROM religion and anything that feels good is fine.
None for me thank you.
Yesterday at 12:44pm
Micah McAllister
Micah McAllister
I agree with some of your points Sue about preserving freedoms and doing
no harm to others. However, it is your opinion only that atheist deny
the "obvious". While I am not an atheist by definition, I completely
understand where they are coming from. Atheists deny the plausibility
of an intervening God because there is virtually no repeatable and verifiable evidence to support that belief.

What many call faith is really a confirmation bias of conforming one's
reality to their already held beliefs. When something "good" happens,
it is taken for granted as being faith promoting and given by God. When
something "bad" happens, it is considered to be the work of the devil.
Both of these deny reality of what the evidence suggests, that if there
is a God, he/she/it doesn't intervene on human affairs nor make
themselves known. Thus the confusion amongst religions and members of
all strict creeds describing similar emotions and feelings as evidence
that their group is the one and only truth.

We all bias our experiences to match what we want to uphold in our beliefs. To not do
so would lead to a collapse of our beliefs, which many atheists will be
ever so happy to explain if you were to reach out to them for
understanding instead of biased comments suggesting they have nothing
to offer society.

This is my opinion and perspective which you can do what you want with. Thanks for the conversation.
Yesterday at 1:14pm ·
Ruble Chaske Fisher
Ruble Chaske
Oh the vain and foolish philosophies of men who set themselves up to be God´s. All good things come from Jesus of Nazareth. All evil comes from the
self-titled, ¨Illuminated One¨, who is full of all manner of clever and
subtle manipulations and deceits.

All men who believe that having faith in Jesus Christ is to ¨deny reality¨ shall soon be looking
for any place they can find to hide because of the intense shame that
shall consume their hearts and souls. The problem is that there will
not be any place to hide, and they will have to stand there transparent
before all as the hypocrites that they are!
Yesterday at 1:22pm
Micah McAllister
Micah McAllister
Yes James, Thomas Jefferson did compile his own version of the New
Testament, extracting those bits of wisdom that appear to be the
genuine teachings of Jesus, and leaving out all of the supernatural and
contradictory writings. He left out angels, virgin birth, miracles,
resurrection and the divinity of Jesus. He just kept the very usable
moral code which Jesus taught, which any person of reason would likely
agree with. More here:
Yesterday at 1:28pm ·
Micah McAllister
Micah McAllister
Ruble Chaske, the vengeful Jesus you described is in sharp contradiction to
the loving and accepting Jesus of the new testament. Any Jesus or being
capable of such hypocrisy is neither divine nor worthy of devotion. The
fear is born and spread by those who would take advantage of this
compassionate Jesus to usurp the peace and freedoms of the meek
and gentle of heart. The Jesus of the New Testament would not be
recognized by the majority of Christians (including LDS) professing his
name if He were to walk amongst us again.
Yesterday at 1:34pm ·
Ruble Chaske Fisher
Ruble Chaske
Micah, I agree that Jesus, if He came again as a Lamb, would not be recognized
by a majority of those who profess to be Christians in this day.

Though, the scriptures are replete with the difference between the roles that
Jesus has when He came to earth 2000 years ago vs. the role He will
have when He comes again.

He came as a Lamb at the Meridian of Time; this time, He comes as a Lion with judgement and justice. That
judgement, as described in scripture, is a complete destruction of
those who call themselves by His name, but do not serve Him, or their
fellow-men, in truth or righteousness.

Micah, from reading your previous opinions about Atheists and this last post, I am a little
confused. If you could help to allay that confusion, I would appreciate

Are you supporting Atheists, or do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth is, in fact, the Messiah and Savior of the world, and that
salvation cometh by no other name under Heaven?
Yesterday at 1:50pm
Sue Venable
Micah, did you ever read in his own words why he separated out the words of
Christ? Could it be that he separated those out for his own study, that
he might memorize them? Could it be that he wanted to give particular
emphasis to Christ's words? And, if he separated out the words of
Christ, then that pretty much concludes that he was a follower
of Christ, a Christian, not a deist. Christ told us to be perfect, even
as His Father was perfect. Why did Jefferson say that he made this
special collection of Christ's words?

Christ is not vengeful, but when we learn of His total love and then how we have contributed to
his crucifixion and payment for our sins, then our hearts feel the pain
of our sins. When we understand the pain and suffering we have caused
others, then we suffer their pain. And then we learn not to cause
others pain, by obedience to the commandments. To obey the
commandments, this is love and it brings strength and happiness to all
those around us.
Yesterday at 2:06pm
Micah McAllister
Micah McAllister
Sue, this is what Jefferson described it in a letter to John Adams dated 13 October 1813:
“ In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to
strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by
priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of
riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss
the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the
Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations,
their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a
long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce
our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very
words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have
been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen
from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and
expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood
themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and
benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have
performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out
of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his,
and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The
result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated

It would seem that he found the pure teachings of Jesus as a wonderful moral code, but didn't consider him to be of
divine descent or capable of miracles. Just my understanding and
opinion mind you.
Yesterday at 2:22pm ·
Micah McAllister
Micah McAllister
I apologize for the confusion Ruble Chaske. I support atheists in so far
as I see others making bigoted and untrue statements against them. But
I would do this for any group or demographic of which I hear false
claims or bigoted judgmental statements of which I knew such claims and
statements to be false. In other words, I hope to both establish truth and understanding where I see an opportunity for it to be made
known according to my own perspective, and also find truth and wisdom
wherever it may be found.

I consider myself spiritual but not religious. I don't hold to nor follow any dogmatic belief systems or
creeds. As Thomas Paine said, my mind is my own religion/church. I find
wisdom in the teachings that can be sourced to Jesus, but I do not
recognize Jesus as a savior of myself nor anyone. I find wisdom of
equal worth from Buddha and many other sages. It is my opinion that we
can only save ourselves and have neither power nor ability to save
others, but we can help them see their own inner truth which may lead
to them saving themselves. I don't believe in sin but I do believe in
Karma, reap what you sow, what goes around comes around etc. I hope
that clarifies somewhat where I am coming from. Thanks for asking.
Yesterday at 2:35pm ·
Sue Venable
Yes. And maybe he simply understood that the Bible was recorded by men,
translated by men, and deformed by men. What I don't get is, knowing
this, why he thought they had recorded the words of Christ correctly
and that they had not been subjected to the same types of
misinterpretation as the rest...
But what else did he have?
But if Christ were not divine, simply a spiritual leader, then why his words? If he were
just a prophet, then why not the words of the other prophets as well?
He wished to throw off all that might be misleading, because he had not
yet found the complete understanding he sought. He still sought more
pure and correct understanding.
Yesterday at 2:37pm
Micah McAllister
Micah McAllister
I understand what you are alluding to Sue(my assumption), that Thomas
Jefferson and others "knew" that true church was not upon the Earth and
thus weren't strict to adhere to any particular creed. My own Great
Great Grandfather John D.T. McAllister was baptized proxy in the St.
George temple by Wilford Woodruff for all of the deceased US presidents who Woodruff saw in a dream and reported of in the April 10, 1898 Conference. (more on that here:

However, I no longer believe either in the concept of a one true
church/restoration, nor that this dream was an authentic expression of
what any of these men or women (from the link above) wanted in
death/after-life. I respect your right to believe as you wish and do
not mean to detract from your freedom of expression.
Yesterday at 2:50pm ·
Lisette Muntslag
There is no doubt about it...
Yesterday at 4:15pm
Micah McAllister
Micah McAllister
Brian Knox said: "Dude, if your "own mind is your religion", then don't be so
pretentious as to lecture people on who would and would not recognize
the Jesus of the New Testament. Would you ever take medical advice from
a doctor who said his medical school was his own garage? I wouldn't.
Likewise I won't listen to lectures on faith from the openly faithless. Please, stop evangelizing your personal doubts."

Thanks for your opinion Brian. To clarify, just because I consider my religion
to be my own, of my own mind, doesn't mean I don't understand either
religions or the religious, and perhaps that is why you deleted your
comment as you read further about my own background. My stance of
personal religion is not much different than that of Thomas Jefferson,
as he alluded to in a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

"You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

-Thomas Jefferson
Yesterday at 4:30pm ·
Sue Venable
Well, I'm sorry that you have lost the knowledge of your ancestors. Cyrus
said this happens, because of iniquity. He spoke of the knowledge of
the ancients which was lost due to iniquity which he believed to be
very great with only fragments of it left in his own day.
Yesterday at 4:59pm
Micah McAllister
Micah McAllister
Sue, I can appreciate why you would believe my collapse of belief was due to
iniquity, for that is what you and other LDS faithful are conditioned
to believe in the multiple lessons discussing "'the bitter fruits of
apostasy". I can assure such was not the case in my instance and that
it actually came about through sincere prayer and following what
I recognized to be true to me. Again, I don't mean to diminish yours or
anyone else's belief in the LDS church. I respect everyone's right to
believe what they want. I engaged in this thread because I saw an
opportunity for greater understanding and empathy towards atheists and
humanists to be established. I hope that is what I have accomplished,
but the results aren't up to me. How your treat and respect others is
your own karma.
Yesterday at 5:22pm ·
Sue Venable
Ah, but he was a sect of Christianity, a follower of Christ.
Yesterday at 5:23pm
V Brice Hunt
V Brice
With everything said, that still does not justify atheism and humanism as
standards for right and wrong. Any humanist could claim the right to
harm a few to benefit society as a whole. By the standards of humanism,
this is all that needs to be done to justify an action. It does not
matter if the action is actually harmful, only intent matters to humanists.
The entire "Soviet experiment" was run by humanists with good
intentions, yet they killed more of their own people than any other
government ever, with the possible exception of the communist Chinese
government (another bunch of humanists).

Pure atheists can reasonably adopt an even lower standard. Atheism promotes the law of
the jungle, which is do what is necessary to survive and thrive
regardless of whether it hurts anyone else or not. If an atheist adopts
higher standards than this, it is because they worship something that
encourages them to adopt higher standards, thus are not true atheists
(e.g. humanists are not true atheists because humanists worship human
ability and intellect, thus are forever learning but never arriving at
the truth).

If repeatable results really mattered to atheists and humanists, all of them would have rejected communism long before
Marx ever wrote his manifesto.
10 hours ago
Lisette Muntslag
Thank you...they are learning to become stupid!
9 hours ago
Micah McAllister
Micah McAllister
Brice, for the purpose of offering perspective, your comments are outright
offensive and judgmental towards atheists. How many atheists do you
actually know and how well do you know them? While it may be true that
the soviet "experiment" of humanism didn't turn out so well, religions
have an equally dismal track of not seeking the great good for all
of society and instead just the advancement of their own clan. Need I
remind you of the crusades where Christianity was a loose bulldog
ridding the world of anyone who would not bow down to that belief

For a more modern example of religion hurting others for the benefit of their own group, look no further than the Mountain
Meadows Massacre, but perhaps that hits just a bit too close to home
eh? An example right out of Mormon cannon that seems to go hand in hand
with your humanist example is that of Nephi being commanded to murder
Laban in cold blood "that an entire nation might not perish to
disbelief". How is that any different than the humanist example other
than your belief that God would stoop to hypocrisy in commanding the
disobedience of His own commandment to not kill? If this God was truly
all powerful and all knowing, he would be perfectly capable of
providing other means that wouldn't require the breaking of his own
commandments, making him a hypocrite and an impostor. Just some food
for thought. Bigotry is often a reflection of one's own hypocrisy and
9 hours ago ·
V Brice Hunt
V Brice
Did I defend the ill deeds of any person or group of people? You missed the
point of my argument entirely. Atheism and Humanism are NOT able to
provide equitable standards for a free society. And now, even
considering the OFFICIAL misdeeds of religions (e.g. the inquisition,
the crusades), ALL OF THEM COMBINED have not created as much suffering
and death as a TWENTY YEAR PERIOD of the Soviet Union and a continuing
FIFTY-PLUS year period of communist China (all done by followers of
Humanism--specifically the branch of Humanism that houses the followers
of Marx and Hegel).

To successfully counter my point, you must show HOW Humanist thought could possibly provide a standard for a free
society. You would have to lay out an ethical system that is plausibly
Humanist and supports freedom. Yet, you failed to do that. It shows
your own lack of a real education. If you respond again, will you bring
anything of substance to the argument? I hope so, or I will simply have
to ignore you for lacking the ability to address the topic at hand (a
distinctly "Progressive" Humanist trait--they tend to change the
meanings of words to suit their own purposes).

As for atheism, how does it provide for ANY standard of behavior? Atheism is THE LACK
OF BELIEF in anything meaningful other than what your own senses tell
you to believe. It is A LACK OF A MORAL SYSTEM. You show me an
atheistic system that believes in anything other than what the
individual atheist can see, feel, hear, taste, or smell and I will show
you a false atheist. Show me an atheist that believes in more than the
atheist's own senses and I will show you that atheist's god. Once that
atheist's god is known, that person is no longer an atheist. Instead,
that person worships something. That person has a god.
9 hours ago
V Brice Hunt
V Brice
As for my pretended offenses to you, the truth cuts the wicked to the very heart.
9 hours ago
Micah McAllister
Micah McAllister
Peace to you Brice. I have nothing to prove. The evidence will stand up for
itself to the unibiased seeker of truth. Atheism is merely a definition
of someone who doesn't believe in God. It doesn't infer that they don't
have anything meaningful to believe in. On the contrary, it can be
argued that they have as much or more to believe in and live
for than religious folk as they are very aware that this life might be
their one and only shot to live a good and purposefully life and so
they generally have the attitude of doing good to all and dispelling
bad ideas when encountered so as to better the enjoyment of the whole
of society. Atheism is not the lack of morals, but only a differing
perspective of where morals come from. This short talk by Sam Harris (a
non believer in God) explains how science and evidenced based thinking
can provide for a moral basis of humanity:

Thanks for the discussion.
9 hours ago ·
Micah McAllister
Micah McAllister
Brice, here's the full talk from Sam Harris. That last link was a shortened version.
8 hours ago ·
Lisette Muntslag
Thanks again Brice...

"And now, even considering the OFFICIAL misdeeds of religions (e.g. the
inquisition, the crusades), ALL OF THEM COMBINED have not created as
much suffering and death as a TWENTY YEAR PERIOD of the
Soviet Union and a continuing FIFTY-PLUS year period of communist China
(all done by followers of Humanism-- specifically the branch of Humanism that houses the followers of Marx and Hegel)."

it is a fact...only the truth can set us free from the demon loosed upon us!
8 hours ago
Micah McAllister
Micah McAllister
Lisette, to demonize someone or some group of people is to de-humanize them and
to automatically put them at a disadvantage to you as you have now
falsely placed yourself on a pedestal. This is one of the true meanings
of pride, to elevate yourself above another. Jesus' antidote for this
pride is to walk a mile (or more) in another's shoes, as this
can have the effect of true understanding and compassion for that
person or group who you previously held in a negative light. That
doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but it can allow for a more
peaceful and understanding society. You're also welcome to review the
video I posted above which in my opinion, demonstrates quite well how
atheist, humanists and science can provide for a universal basis for a
free and peaceful society.
8 hours ago ·
V Brice Hunt
V Brice
You are not an atheist. You have faith in what scientists say (even though
they are often wrong, you are not opposed to amend your opinion as they
amend theirs).

This is the "Scientific" branch of Humanism. Many in this branch claim to be atheists, but few truly are. Some
people in this branch can be rather ruthless. The eugenics movement
arose from
this branch of Humanism. On the other hand, this branch of Humanists
also includes people of a philosophically libertarian bent, such as
Isaac Asimov and Albert Einstein. If all scientific Humanists could be
fairly minded and agree on one set of principles, we could use this
branch of humanism as a philosophical base for a free society.

When you compare what the more libertarian of this particular group of
Humanists believe to the commonly held principles of most major world
religions (including Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and most of
Christianity), you will find that these principles are very similar
(e.g. treat others fairly and with kindness, do all you agree to do, do
not harm others or their property, etc). These principles form the
foundation of freedom upon which our constitution is based. These
principles are sometimes called "principles of common law."

So with that, I will declare peace with you, Micah--even though I had to
do most of your work for you in revealing what you really were trying
to say.
8 hours ago
Micah McAllister
Micah McAllister
Brice, who is the one changing the definition of terms to meet their needs? An
atheist by definition is: a person who denies or disbelieves the
existence of a supreme being or beings. Having a belief in science or
humanism doesn't make me or anyone NOT an atheist. However, it seems as
though you have a need to construe this evidence so as to allow
for such individual to actually have a moral basis to offer society. In
other words, changing your definition to make them not atheists allows
you to continue to believe that "real" atheists or humanists have
nothing to offer society. In essence, you are agreeing that these
individuals can offer a moral basis on which to found society, but you
only agree by changing your own internal definition to label them as
non-atheists. That is mind boggling and goes to the very core of what
it means to have confirmation bias. Good luck with that.
8 hours ago ·
V Brice Hunt
V Brice
I did not change any meanings. If you believe in science, you are showing
faith in scientists. You cannot verify everything that a scientist
says. You must have faith at some point. If you place the word of a
scientist or a group of scientists above the scriptures, you are
worshiping those scientists as supreme beings. Most humanists worship
humans of some sort or other as "the gods," even though most humanists will
refuse to admit it. Yet, when actions speak, most Humanists are found
worshiping the human race or at least some portion of it.

The scriptural term for this form of worship is "idolatry." If a scientist
is your god, you are not atheist. You believe in a scientist-god or a
human-god. Pagans that worship little statues are not atheists. Not all
gods of paganism were perfect, all-powerful, supreme, or even worthy of
worship, yet pagans worship them without being classified as atheists.
Humans that worship other humans are also not atheists. Humans that
worship themselves are not atheists. Humans that do all in their power
for popularity are not atheists, as they worship attention from others.
All of these people have a god or even many gods. An atheist believes
in NO GOD.

"Atheist" is from Greek. "A-" means "against." "The" means "god" or "gods." "-ist" means "one who is." Thus, an
atheist is one who is against gods or a god--i.e. one who does not have
any gods. This is truly a difficult state to obtain for anyone with a
brain. Inevitably, one will always place a premium on something or
other. When one does this, one has a god. Humanists often try to hide
their religion in the cloak of atheism--to make it seem more palatable.
What Humanists really worship is the human race. Some want to perfect
it. Others want to cleanse it. Still others believe in "live and let
live." Despite the different view points, they are all still worshiping
humans or humanity in general. They have a god and are not atheist.
7 hours ago
V Brice Hunt
V Brice
With that said, I am willing to let people worship humanity if they so
desire, as long as they do not encroach on myself, my family, or my
property, and as long as they fulfill any contracts that they may make
with me.
7 hours ago
Lisette Muntslag
Micah...please don't give me the crock that I am demonizing people because I know what
it feels like to be de-humanized by the wicked Marxist, Atheist,
Humanist hogwash. If it were not for my faith I would not be of sound
mind today. All these humanist or whatever who preach the crap of a
more peaceful and understanding society are totalitarian minds
who want to force their non-sense down other peoples throat if you
disagree with their ANTI-GOD religion/IDEOLOGY you become persona
non-grata...been there and know that so spare me the non-sense because
it's all non-sense.
3 hours ago
V Brice Hunt
V Brice
Lisette, that reminded me of a funny one-act play that Murray Rothbard wrote
about Ayn Rand. You can read some background information and the play
29 minutes ago

Micah McAllister
Micah McAllister
Now you're just being silly. Peace out.
2 seconds ago ·

4 hours ago ·
Sue Venable
Micah, you were taught Humanism or Atheism by the Public Schools. That is what they teach. It is the religion of socialism. If a man believes he is an
animal, then he can be herded more easily.

A man who knows he is a son of God cannot be herded easily at all. Nor will he give up his
family for the wolves to consume his children in ... See Moresacrifices
to Baal, child sex rings, or even just to be raised by the State for
the army or whatever other use the State decides to put them to.

The basis of society is the family. In socialism, the family is weak and
the State raises children. In God's way, the family is the natural
healthy foundation for all life.
56 minutes ago
Lisette Muntslag
@Brice..thank you for sharing...I never took the time to get into her mindset but reading bits and piece and others referening to her made me question
her work and motivation too. I had registered with the institute the
bears her name but one essay that come out of that machine scared the
living daylights out of me and it led me to unsubcribe...the... See More
doublespeak is what really did, I cannot remember what it was but I
saved the information because it will come in handy some day to expose
the hypocrites.
44 minutes ago
Lisette Muntslag
Sue...hit it on the nail that's why the nation is in dire straights..everything and anything goes according these gods on earth. I did my home work on
this and just looking around me you can see the death souls all over
the place products over their environment...but the hypocrites don't
care...the more misery the better because they love chaos, confusion,
misery, death and destructions is what keeps them in business.
36 minutes ago

Views: 212

Comment by Dr DJ Williams on May 14, 2010 at 4:33pm
Yup, Mike, you win the patience prize! Wow!
Comment by MikeUtah on May 14, 2010 at 6:06pm
lol, Thanks Dr DJ.
Comment by Pinklilly on May 26, 2010 at 11:16pm
Very interesting to read. Micah, I have to say that of all the people who responded on that thread, you were the one who demonstrated the most respect. I aspire to be like that with everyone I meet, even though I am an atheist.
Comment by LessMon on July 11, 2010 at 1:45pm
Although painful, thanks for posting this, Micah. It's nice to be reminded how refreshing a rationalist viewpoint is compared to my former life.
Comment by Idaho Spud on May 23, 2011 at 2:07pm

As chance said, it is exhausting, and, as Flat Lander said, it's painful.  I too read the first few comments from the religiously brainwashed ,then just skimmed.  Read all of your comments, and agree that it's futile to try to reason with them.  

However, I think you do some good.  Any reasonable person following the conversation will be able to see the fallacy of their arguments.  But I can't argue with people like that.  I don't have the 'patience of Job' like you do.

Comment by Kath Jones on May 24, 2011 at 12:52am
Wow...took me all day to get this read, thank you "multi-level-duties". Micah, I don't know where you come from, but your level of mindfulness just amazes me. You might, sorta, be my new God...


You need to be a member of Life After Mormonism (exmormon) to add comments!

Join Life After Mormonism (exmormon)

Our Stories

Follow us on
Facebook & Twitter

Videos |Stories |Chat |Books |Store |Forum
Your Donations are appreciated
and help to promote and fund LAM.
Make a Donation

Privacy Tip: Setting your profile/My-Page visibility to "Members Only" will make your status updates visible to members only.

Community Links



  • Add Videos
  • View All

We are an online social community of former mormons, ex-mormons, ex-LDS and sympathizers. Stay C.A.L.M. - Community After Leaving Mormonism

© 2017   Created by MikeUtah.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service