We're all born atheist or agnostic, then someone starts lying to us.

Interesting that while we're born atheist or agnostic, the region we're born in typically decides with which God's we are indoctrinated.

Agnosticism regards knowledge, atheism regards belief. Everyone is born without belief in any "god", therefore it is correct to say everyone is born atheist, just as everyone is born without knowledge of any "god" and thus agnostic as well.

What's really important is that nobody acquires either knowledge or belief of any "god" except from other humans, never from any "god".
1. Is it possible that you're wrong about the truthfulness of the church? (More blatant: If Thomas S. Monson admitted in general conference he is not a prophet and the church is a fraud, would you leave the church?)
2. If some people believe their religion is true because of their faith, is faith then any indicator of truth?
3. Does it matter to you if your religion is historically accurate?
4. If the church is true, why are there so many questionable things in its history?
5. If the church was not what it claims to be, would you want to know?
6. How can you know it's true given the church has been giving half truths since Joseph Smith?
7. Should we abandon the rules of evidence when evaluating religious claims?

Why did I leave the church?

* Historical Issues
* Scientific Issues
* Doctrinal and theological issues
* Socio-political and cultural issues
* Spiritual issues

"You're right mom, they were just men. They can't be counted on to do God's will successfully, so God won't fault me for not trusting them and discounting/ignoring their advice."

"What is good about the church is not unique to the church, and what is unique about the church is not good. The truth claims the church has made either cannot be objectively verified, or where they can be, we find a long history of lying and backpedaling."

Atheism isn't a statement on existence, it's a lack of belief in deities, generally due to the lack of reliable evidence for such belief. Atheism is not a claim that gods do not exist, it's just a lack of belief that they do. It's a null position. It's not possible to prove that no gods exist (just like it's impossible to prove that no pirate ghosts exist), but it is possible to say with great confidence that no EVIDENCE for gods has ever been shown to exist.

Why did god allow these men to speak ill in his name? Would not a Heavenly Father "inspire" these men to speak his truth? Why would a Heavenly Father allow his reputation to be defamed by his own spokespeople? If these "prophets of god" could not tell the difference between there own limited views on humanity and inspiration through the gift of the holy ghost, what good is anything they say?

"I'm sure you believe the church is true, but I have a different method of determining truth than you. I've learned to trust facts and evidence over what I want to be true just because it feels good. And this is what the evidence leads me to believe. If you want to disregard evidence because that's not how you find truth, you can, and I will disregard your testimony for the same reason."

No amount of evidence will be able to convince someone their belief is wrong if they didn't use evidence and reason to first form that belief.

In any debate, your objective is not to convince your opponent; they will never change their views. Your objective is to convince the onlookers, as they have no personal stake in the outcome and are therefore more open to reconsidering their previous beliefs.

http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html

"If your Personal Beliefs deny what's objectively true about the world, then they're more accurately called Personal Delusions." -NDT

"Pray and read our literature more" is the solution for every doubt in every fundamentalist religion I've encountered. Or, if unable to read, "believe harder".

“Religion diverts workers so that they concentrate on being rewarded in heaven for living a moral life rather than on questioning their current exploitation”