Comments about ‘Letter: Religious intolerance’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, March 25 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
university place, WA

You said: "Since Athiests cannot see the entire universe, they rely on faith that God does not exist, and hold to their beliefs based on that faith."

Now that's some funny stuff. First, as an atheist, I can see and experience the entire universe. I just have to look into a cloudless night sky to see it, or marvel at its wonders when I watch my tulips come into full bloom. Second, I don't need to have faith to understand the universe. I don't need faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I know with certainty that, barring a catastrophe that will destroy us all anyways, the sun will rise tomorrow and the next day, and the day after that. I know that so long as I water my gardens; provide adequate nutrients and care, that there is a very high probability that my tulips will grow this year and next year, and likely the year after that. No faith required.

Hank Pym

to Mountanman

Agreed except when businesses infringe on the personal beliefs of others (their employees included).

Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Lane Myer" sorry, I guess I had to spell it out to you. Human Secularism, which is more than just secularism.

Agnosticism is a religion too.

Please tell us that you actually know what a religion is, and not just what some liberal has told you qualifies as a religion.

To "my_two_cents_worth" how do you know that God does not exist? Do you have irrefutable evidence that he does not exist? If you do not have evidence that God does not exist, then you rely on faith that God does not exist.

Actually, you do need faith to understand the universe. Any time a scientist makes a new discovery they have to have faith that their theory is correct. No scientist has a perfect knowledge of the outcome of their experiment or study until it is complete.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Redshirt1701 – “… actually secularism is a religion. A religion is defined as a set of beliefs adhered to by faith.”

Please see my earlier Zeus comment (and provide an answer with respect to your own non-belief in Zeus) because you’re still not connecting the dots here.

And just to clarify, most atheists I know are fairly agnostic when it comes to the creative force behind the Universe. They tend to be open to possibilities and generally believe we should follow the evidence. They just don’t see good evidence to believe that creative force is the god depicted in the Bronze Age writings of a middle eastern desert tribe.

And for those watching from the bleachers, this is the new tact of religious believers. They know deep down that faith is what you’re left with when you lack sufficient evidence for something, so in order to discredit atheism/agnosticism they desperately need to establish it as a faith – and apparently violating the logical law of non-contradiction does not trouble them in the least.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Hypothetical question for the right-wingers...

I believe in God and the power of prayer.

Using this silly "logic",
Can I use MY religous convictions and tell my employees they lack suficient faith,
and expect them to pray their way healthy,
and tell the Government my BUSINESS is protected because of MY religous beliefs?

Because they way I see it --
The right-wing will snap a Single-Payer Healthcare System across the nation so fast Ted Cruz and Mike Lee will never have time to Shutdown the Government.

university place, WA


You asked: “how do you know that God does not exist?”

I don’t know that God does not exist. However, since no clear evidence of any god has been found or presented, I find the existence of your god (or anyone else’s god) to be highly improbable. Now, should you or anyone else present logical and verifiable evidence of god, I'll gladly change my position.

You proclaimed: “Any time a scientist makes a new discovery they have to have faith that their theory is correct.”

Spoken like someone who has no concept of the scientific method or how science answers questions. Scientists, unlike religionists, readily accept that change will happen as our body of knowledge increases.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Do you know the difference between beliefs and religion? Can a person have beliefs and not have a religion? If I believe that 1+1=2, does that make me religious? I think you are going to say yes, because you believe that a person (Agnostic) who just has questions without any answers belongs to a religion!

Religion: 1)The service and worship of God or the supernatural 2)devotion to a religious faith 3) an organized system of faith and worship -a personal set of religious beliefs and practices - 4)Cause, principle, or belief held with faith and ardor.

Agnosticism does not fit any of these descriptions. They are not ardorous in their ideas but simply question the beliefs of those who are ardorous (both atheists and believers).

Scientists always want others to prove their theory again and again in case it is wrong - thus adding to knowledge. So far, the theory of gravity has not been proven wrong. So far 1+1=2. They do NOT have to have faith that their theory is correct, but are seeking more knowledge through trying new theories all the time - sometimes the exact opposite of what they were trying to prove earlier. Faith does not play a role.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Finding Truth 101

Scientific Method:

Formulation of a question

Religious Method

Formulation of a question -
[What Church is True, The barges are Dark Inside]

Hypothesis -
[If I ask God, He will answer me].

[I know with sufficent Faith, God will hear and answer my prayer].

[The burning bossom, Gift of the Holy Ghost, pay tithing, etc.]

[Witness & bear Testimony that you KNOW something is true.]


"...and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts"...

Same thing --
That settles it,
God is a Scientist.

Salt Lake City, UT

If a woman wants to have a legal drug, it should be her decision and hers alone. Hobby Lobby should appreciate that they don't bear any personal responsibility in allowing their insurer to provide a drug to one of their employees. The employee bears entire responsibility including the wrath of God if there be such.

Actually the Hobby Lobby position demonstrates the magical thinking which prevails in fundamentalist religion - that if one even comes in contact with a particular forbidden drug or object that person gets tainted. Hobby Lobby's position is absurd as is that of writer and the Deseret News.

Salt Lake City, UT

It should be appreciated that contraceptives including those choking Hobby Lobby are prescribed for a variety of women's conditions, not just contraception. Some of these conditions are life-threatening. But if the drugs are prescribed for contraception, so what? They are legal for such purposes and Hobby Lobby's objections are the worse sort of "religious intolerance," and are part of the GOP war on women.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

So glad that an employer thinks they get to decide what is said and prescribed between a medical professional and an employee is any of their business.

When you are in your next job interview, make sure to ask your employer what religion they are so you can determine whether or not you can comply their religion's medical views.

That's what employment will come down to. Religious compatibility. Sounds American to me.

Salt Lake City, UT

No one has a right to stand between a woman and her physician, no one!

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The Supreme Court has heard the arguments. According to USA Today, "While the justices were predictably divided along ideological lines, it appeared that a majority of them did not want to force for-profit corporations to offer health plans that include birth control methods they claim cause abortions."

Other reports claim that it appears that the court will rule 7 to 2 against the government, meaning that religious freedom is alive and well in America. Of course, the Court will not tell us their decision until June, but unless political pressure is used, Hobby Lobby will prevail.

South Jordan, UT

You are confusing religious tolerance with the perceived right to discriminate against others for their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). That is not the same thing.

Eugene, OR

If Hobby Lobby also refused to cover Viagra, maybe I'd take them seriously.

Wally West

to my_two_cents_worth

Using Reason, common sense, & understanding science; Kudos!

Hank Pym

Did anyone else notice how the difference between how the letter started and ended? What happened in the interim; did the author go listen to A.M. talk radio for some pithy talking points?

Dietrich, ID

@Airnnaut where is the word free agency found in the scriptures? How did Lucifer say he was going to save us all? Was it force or the Protestant doctrine of believe no matter what you do? Dallin H Oaks in talking about abortion rights said we must be for the right choice. Laws are here for a reason including moral laws. It was God who gave us laws. Wants us mortals to make laws of morality for the benefit of his children. Since he only gives commandments for our benefit. That is why we need to speak up for the right moral choices in the legislative body.

The Wraith
Kaysville, UT

LDS Liberal I am left speechless by your comment.

In actual science you need actual evidence not "feelings" like a "burning in the bosom". The evidence must be empirical and I can't examine your "feelings". You may counter that I could experience my own burning but this fails as well when see that billions of people have "feelings" just as strongly about a different religion. Or those like me who sincerely asked and felt no feelings. In actual science a hypotheses gets with this vast amount of conflicting results it is rejected.

Also in science a valid theory has to make predictions that actually come true. In religion people I know have prayed and prayed for something and it didn't happen. Instead of being told that the hypotheses has now been proven wrong they were told "well it's not was god wanted". In science you don't get that luxury, if the predictions are wrong the hypotheses is rejected.

Using your logic it has now been scientifically proven that god doesn't exist. I'm not sure that's what you were looking for

The Wraith
Kaysville, UT

Not to mention a scientific theory must be falsifiable. This means that now matter how well established a theory might be if new evidence comes to light that proves the theory wrong then that theory is rejected or modified according to the new evidence. In my experience no religion has as one it's founding principles the idea that it is falsifiable. In fact they are exactly the opposite, they all claim to be the one and only true church.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments