I realize science is the go to option for combating religious inconsistency, however, I would like to approacch this from my area of expertise, history.

See, historians require hard evidence in order to draw any form of meaningful conclusions, however, unlike scientists, historians have to make assumptions more often. This is mainly because historians have fewer resources at hand in order to prove something. That is not to say historians take things on faith, we simply have to make conclusions with what we have, this is especially true when dealing with ancient cultures.

for example, we know a lot about the Romans because they kept a great many records. We know very little about Britain from 400-600 AD (roughly) because those records either do not exist or were destroyed. What does this have to do with religion?

Well, the bible may be considered a historical document of sorts. The problem with the bible however is  its age. Throughout the bible's history it has been revised, edited, translated, reconfigured and rewritten uncountable times. This represents a major problem when trying to determine anything from the bible. Especially when we compare the Old and New Testaments. See, historians can verify that the Old Testament is highly inacurate, with maybe one or two points of interest for those dealing with ancient cultures. How do we know this? Well, there;s no other supporting evidence. Also, the OT is basically Judaism. So historians safely can say the OT is inaccurate. The problem is the NT.

The New Testament provides historians with a major headache . See, historians cannot claim that Jesus wasn't real. That's not how these things work. See someone had to inspire people to write about these events. Muhamed was the trigger for Islam, so who was the trigger for Christianity? History shows that people record those who inspire changes in their societies and cultures. Well, the answer is: historians don't know. Historians have concluded basically 2 things for sure: 1) there was someone who preached 2) the bible was severely delayed in being written.

What brings us to this conclusion? Roman records. Romans were obsessive about their record keeping, and we haven't found anything indicating a preacher around Jesus's time. Though some historians suspect he may have preached 100-200 years before the time the bible states. Why? Well back then it took a lot for religious eal to spread, also Romans hated Christianity until the Empire officially adopted it, and even then...

So, overall my point is that religion doesn't have a leg to stand on. And this isn't science, this is simple historical analysis. My evidence comes from where your "evidence" comes from. The difference is that I have support for my claims.

Hit submit to soon.

Story of my life.

No that's just  lame excuse as to why we don't see evidence of him doing jack or squat. If he was omnipotent working through a flawed system is no excuse as that is not means by which an omnipotent being would need to do things.

Well I'm not God now Am I? I don't know his every thought and agenda, but I do know why he doesn't just pop down here. I'm pretty sure I've already said this like twice, if He was poppin' down here we'd lose our power of choice, which is the most important thing. Plus, if he did, none of you guys would believe anyways because you'd find ways to attempt and explain every sign he'd show you.

Those are some Good points though Wolf.

In the end, however, it doesn't matter how much proof or evidence you want because you will never believe. I'll say it again, NEVER BELIEVE. What I'm getting at is if Jesus came down and preformed a dozen different miracles for you, you'd rationalize each one of them. "Oh, he's just knowledgeable with physics and optical illusions". This is a completely fruitless debate, as nothing I can say will convince you, and nothing you can say will convince me.

Well I'm not God now Am I?

arn't we all part of god anymore?

if He was poppin' down here we'd lose our power of choice

what choice?

the demand he makes that we should believe in him or els we will burn eternally in the hell?

that choice? that is no choice, it is a fake choice.

Plus, if he did, none of you guys would believe anyways because you'd find ways to attempt and explain every sign he'd show you.

not true.
if he really exists and he shows himself to me. then their is no doubt and no reason to not believe he exists.

this would be the evidence we are asking for.
give us evidence and we will acknowlets his existens.

In the end, however, it doesn't matter how much proof or evidence you want because you will never believe.

that is what you think. reality however is that we acknowlets that what is proven and has evidence.

I'll say it again, NEVER BELIEVE.

i say it again. this is what you think. this is not reality.

What I'm getting at is if Jesus came down and preformed a dozen different miracles for you, you'd rationalize each one of them.

not if he could really do magic.
he would be able to actually provide us some evidence. we are not as blind as you that we will not look into it. and we will acknowlets it's truth if it's real.

Oh, he's just knowledgeable with physics and optical illusions"

if some of us makes this claim then he should give evidence for it.
what physics and optical illusions are done.and if it really are these then anyone should be able to do it aswell.

is this not the case then we have to acknowlets that what he did is in fact magic. we will then all turn around and say we believe that magic does in fact exist.

This is a completely fruitless debate

as long you do not come up whit facts for your claims. it is.

as nothing I can say will convince you,

give evidence thats all we are asking.

and nothing you can say will convince me.

so you are closing the door not us. you are the one that doesn't wanna look past your own indoctrinated believe. not us.

In the end, however, it doesn't matter how much proof or evidence you want because you will never believe.

Given proper, credible evidence I'd believe. The problem is I lack the ability to take things on faith. And this isn't just a religious thing, I quite literally do not believe anything until I can see it for myself.

and nothing you can say will convince me

See, this is our difference. Given evidence we would change our minds and accept what you're saying. However, you refuse to change yours no matter what we show you. That is the halmark of ignorance.

if He was poppin' down here we'd lose our power of choice, which is the most important thing.

How would knowing he exists take our choice away? Further, haven't you said earlier that people feel God in their own way? Wouldn't that be the same thing?

If someone gives you a plate of macaroni and cheese, you don't have to eat it. We would still have a 'choice' (not that it ever was one in the way you're saying) on whether to follow said figure. The only difference would be, God wouldn't be rewarding only the gullible for following him.

Plus, if he did, none of you guys would believe anyways because you'd find ways to attempt and explain every sign he'd show you.

I could list a number of things that would instantly make me deeply consider the existence of a god. Less things that would make me instantly consider the existence of the Christian god. Very few things that would make me instantly consider Mormonism as the correct version.

Point is, I'm far from being unable to change sides. I only ask for evidence, of which there is currently none.

In the end, however, it doesn't matter how much proof or evidence you want because you will never believe.

Sure I would. God should know exactly what those things are that would make me consider believing in him, too.

How is it taking away someone's choices in life to show them that, in fact, something does exist? Truth is the truth. If he exists regardless of whether we believe in him, then he's doing us NO favor by continuing to hide.

This is a completely fruitless debate, as nothing I can say will convince you, and nothing you can say will convince me.

No, there are plenty of things that can convince us. It's fruitless because you're plugging your ears and being a regurgitory device. No matter what happens, you will not listen to us. Whereas all you have to do is provide some kind of logical or physical evidence that supports the existence of a god.

Not personal testimonies.
Not vague claims on everyone being somewhat right.
Not reading from your book where these claims come from.
Not claims of how God loves us.
Etc.

Well I'm not God now Am I? I don't know his every thought and agenda, but I do know why he doesn't just pop down here.

Statements like that always make me think of this.

I'm pretty sure I've already said this like twice, if He was poppin' down here we'd lose our power of choice, which is the most important thing.

No that's a load of crap. We wouldn't lose our power of choice. We would still be able to choose if we wanted to follow/worship this being or not. We would just be able to make those decision based on factual evidence rather than hearsay.

Not to mention if we are to go by what we get out of the Bible we can see that God appearing to people robs them of nothing. as he does it all the time, or was it just okay for then but not now? Interesting how the miracles and appearances stop just as soon as we are capable of critical examination.

It just makes it look like this is what's happening.
James Randi exposes Hydrick

Plus, if he did, none of you guys would believe anyways because you'd find ways to attempt and explain every sign he'd show you.

Yes we would and if God was the real deal he would be fully capable of passing that examination revealing that he is who he says he is and can do what he claims.
You keep clinging to ignorance like it's a good thing.

For any questions on Mormon history, here is a fun place to get the answers

And here is the place to learn fun facts

There is some language, but this is more or less a good synopsis on Mormon history and a good place to learn interesting LDS facts.

-Blade

How heartless can we be to challenge the established dogma!
How dare we ask questions of that which is to not be questioned!
How dare we demand evidence when non can be offered!
Why not just stop thinking and blindly follow in step!

It's because we aren't heartless, we care very much about the truth.
That's why we ask questions and want reasonable answers to them.
It's why we demand evidence before we could ever accept a claim so extraordinary.
It's why we can't just stop thinking and blindly follow.

How heartless can we be to challenge the established dogma!
How dare we ask questions of that which is to not be questioned!
How dare we demand evidence when non can be offered!
Why not just stop thinking and blindly follow in step!

It's because we aren't heartless, we care very much about the truth.
That's why we ask questions and want reasonable answers to them.
It's why we demand evidence before we could ever accept a claim so extraordinary.
It's why we can't just stop thinking and blindly follow.

While I do not agree with this, I must say that it's written splendidly. Did you write it, Mage?

While I do not agree with this, I must say that it's written splendidly. Did you write it, Mage?

What don't you agree with? And I dabble. I do hope to some day write my own book.