# Believers: Why are you so sure of your beliefs? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 21, 2010, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965 "2010-06-21T07:47:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![in\_hiding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c5a1d2/32.png) [@in\_hiding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/in_hiding)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/241 "2010-07-03T11:57:47Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > My own faith has show me that we were never suppose to worry or react to any form of AGW, as we are the children of mother earth, which is a living spirit, and in many respects we are her fetal child. She is the one to remove our waste gas and supply what we need to breath. What we need to do us understand this relationship, where we are, and stop trying to do what we were never intended to do and let those who are suppose to do those things do them. This frees me from carbon guilt, and lets me enjoy the world as our mother wants us to, to see the world, what she has for us. In other words, you can deny any responsibility for… well, pretty much everything you do. You don’t need to worry about any mistakes, because, hey, you are living they way god wants you to live, right? That’s terribly convenient, isn’t it? Cognitive dissonance can explain a lot, but sometimes I’m really baffled by the way people think. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/242 "2010-07-03T15:18:00Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Mothers chicken soup has been known by many to be a cure for so many illnesses, including the common cold. What the cure is is not in the chemical compounds but the Love flowing from the mother to the child who is acceptive to that Love and trusts his mother. Love is what cures, Love is God and God is Spirit, so Love is Spirit, something science does not want to deal with. > > When scientists get their hands on this, they analyze the chemical compounds, and remove the Love from the mother as far as possible by double blind studies, and remove the acceptance of Love and trust from the child. Then no surprise they find nothing. Or if they do find something they insist that the soup has to contain a certain compound to work, or be made a certain way. This insistence of a certain way, repeatable results, is in religion called legalism. Legalism manifests itself in Christianity in insistence of certain prayers, or rituals or the use of a certain version of the Bible. Science is no different, and they take it to a whole other level. Love does not work this way, Love is accepting and not demanding. > > What about pharmaceuticals that do work. God has His one church everywhere, people who Love others. They work for pharmaceutical companies, and the Love of God flows through them into the medicine, which the person takes. That person may block healing, which is the flow of Love, from prayer or chicken soup, but is open to healing from a medicine, but as has been proven, even placebos can deliver healing. > > It’s not the compounds but the belief that healing must come through compounds that limit people’s ability to heal only through compounds. Once freed from that you can heal from many sources of Love. I think that, whenever you mention the word “science”(or _any_ scientific term) in the future, I shall just provide a link to your post. This will show everyone what you know about science, and save all precious time trying to get coherent answers from you. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/243 "2010-07-03T15:21:38Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I don’t hold belief in the things I do in order to get something out of it, I hold belief in the things I do because the evidences and proofs as I interpret them naturally incline me to believe or not believe in said thing. > The “belief” part. > I have no idea if God is “telling” me what is and isn’t moral. I just rely on my own inner sense of right and wrong, and I don’t know what the origin of that inner sense is. > I never claimed that the deity I believe in is good or evil. There may well be a bazillion deities, but you only need one creator deity to create, so, so far, I only see evidence of at least one. But what if someone else sees what _you_ call “evidence” for a deity that is not yours? Are they wrong, or are there now _two_ deities? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2010, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/244 "2010-07-04T03:54:57Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > When scientists get their hands on this, they analyze the chemical compounds, and remove the Love from the mother as far as possible by double blind studies, and remove the acceptance of Love and trust from the child. Then no surprise they find nothing. Or if they do find something they insist that the soup has to contain a certain compound to work, or be made a certain way. This insistence of a certain way, repeatable results, is in religion called legalism. Legalism manifests itself in Christianity in insistence of certain prayers, or rituals or the use of a certain version of the Bible. Science is no different, and they take it to a whole other level. Love does not work this way, Love is accepting and not demanding. > > What about pharmaceuticals that do work. God has His one church everywhere, people who Love others. They work for pharmaceutical companies, and the Love of God flows through them into the medicine, which the person takes. Does this apply to all medicine, in your view? Does a diabetic not really need insulin, but could be treated with a placebo from a loving doctor? Are we wasting trillions of dollars on doctors and hospitals and pharmaceutical research when all we really need is a giant prayer circle? ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2010, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/245 "2010-07-04T12:22:51Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > But what if someone else sees what _you_ call “evidence” for a deity that is not yours? Are they wrong, or are there now _two_ deities? I believe in a deity that exists, creates, and is powerful. That’s a pretty “catch-all” definition of deity, so it would be difficult to posit a creator deity that falls outside that scope. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2010, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/246 "2010-07-04T13:10:54Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I believe in a deity that exists, creates, and is powerful. > > That’s a pretty “catch-all” definition of deity, so it would be difficult to posit a creator deity that falls outside that scope. A definition so vague as to be meaningless. I exist, I made toast for breakfast, and I hauled a 75 lb. bag of cat food out of storage. _I am God!_ ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/247 "2010-07-05T02:21:19Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I believe in a deity that exists, creates, and is powerful. > > That’s a pretty “catch-all” definition of deity, so it would be difficult to posit a creator deity that falls outside that scope. It would be difficult to posit _any_ sentient entity that falls outside that scope. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/248 "2010-07-05T07:44:10Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It would be difficult to posit _any_ sentient entity that falls outside that scope. By “creates”, I am referring to, creator of the universe. Or, as I posited in my first post to the thread, the cause of the Big Bang. ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/249 "2010-07-05T07:56:41Z")
That’s not evidence for at least one god, that’s evidence for an infinite amount of gods, since it’s also evidence for two gods (one to create the universe and one to create the god that created the universe), which is evidence for three gods (one to create the…) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/250 "2010-07-05T11:14:52Z")
Again I ask-Why does it make more sense that a self-aware entity(God) has existed for all eternity, than a _non_-self aware entity(the universe) has existed for all eternity? ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/251 "2010-07-05T12:05:18Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Again I ask-Why does it make more sense that a self-aware entity(God) has existed for all eternity, than a _non_-self aware entity(the universe) has existed for all eternity? 1. The universe “appears” to be designed. If it was designed, this necessitates a designer. 2. Scientists pretty much unanimously agree that space and time had a beginning. 3. To believe the universe exists eternally is to believe that the sum of some finite amount of things (let’s say, seconds) can equal infinite. To believe that the sum of some finite entities could equal infinite takes too much faith for someone like me to believe in. Someone like me, who prefers things a bit more tangible and observable, doesn’t buy in to such ideas very easily. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/252 "2010-07-05T12:22:27Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I believe in a deity that exists, creates, and is powerful. > > That’s a pretty “catch-all” definition of deity, so it would be difficult to posit a creator deity that falls outside that scope. > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > By “creates”, I am referring to, creator of the universe. Or, as I posited in my first post to the thread, the cause of the Big Bang. By that definition, some machine in another universe that as a side effect of its operation distorts space in such a way that occasional bits break off and go into inflationary expansion into their own universe qualifies as “God”. Or some drunken lab assistant that spills its drink onto Doctor Snrglitzz’s spacetime distortion experiment. Or any number of other things that wouldn’t resemble in the slightest anything most people would call a small-“g” god, much less God. If you are going to change the concept of God so completely, why even use the name? > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > 1. The universe “appears” to be designed. If it was designed, this necessitates a designer. But it doesn’t look designed; quite the opposite. It’s messy, wasteful, chaotic. In other words, natural. > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > 1. Scientists pretty much unanimously agree that space and time had a beginning. No, they don’t; that question is unresolved. They agree that this particular universe had a definite beginning, but not about what if anything before or outside it. > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > 1. To believe the universe exists eternally is to believe that the sum of some finite amount of things (let’s say, seconds) can equal infinite. To believe that the sum of some finite entities could equal infinite takes too much faith for someone like me to believe in. Someone like me, who prefers things a bit more tangible and observable, doesn’t buy in to such ideas very easily. If that was true then you wouldn’t believe in God, since God is the opposite of that. Why is God, which is pretty much the craziest idea ever, more plausible? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/253 "2010-07-05T12:25:48Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > 1. The universe “appears” to be designed. If it was designed, this necessitates a designer. Your “designer” doesn’t seem to be a random collection of parts thrown together-He must have been designed that way, which necessitates a designer. Turtles all the way down. > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > 1. Scientists pretty much unanimously agree that space and time had a beginning. It’s a little more complicated, and not quite so unamimous, as that. > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > 1. To believe the universe exists eternally is to believe that the sum of some finite amount of things (let’s say, seconds) can equal infinite. To believe that the sum of some finite entities could equal infinite takes too much faith for someone like me to believe in. Someone like me, who prefers things a bit more tangible and observable, doesn’t buy in to such ideas very easily. A second is not a “thing”-it’s a measurement of time. You seem to be able to “buy in” to things that are not tangible and/or observable quite easily it seems, btw-your “deity” can’t be observed, apparently has no mass, and by description lived nowhere until he created the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/254 "2010-07-05T12:39:24Z")
I notice the scope of our mystery deity is narrowing by the minute. Less than a page ago it was just some random creative force and already he’s upgraded to a designer, which is a huge step up and carries a lot of implications both about him and about his creation. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/255 "2010-07-05T13:13:41Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > By that definition, some machine in another universe that as a side effect of its operation distorts space in such a way that occasional bits break off and go into inflationary expansion into their own universe qualifies as “God”. Or some drunken lab assistant that spills its drink onto Doctor Snrglitzz’s spacetime distortion experiment. Or any number of other things that wouldn’t resemble in the slightest anything most people would call a small-“g” god, much less God. > > Firstly, > > If you are going to change the concept of God so completely, why even use the name? None of your examples include anything about the design phase, which I’ve mentioned in earlier posts, and is part of the ‘creating’ process. > [@](#): > > But it doesn’t look designed; quite the opposite. It’s messy, wasteful, chaotic. In other words, natural. I have already made it clear that I don’t agree with this assertion. To me, the universe contains plenty of elements that look _designed_. > [@](#): > > No, they don’t; that question is unresolved. They agree that this particular universe had a definite beginning, but not about what if anything before or outside it. Even if this universe is actually just a spin-off from some previously existing universe, all you’ve done is move the _time_ problem back a step. I explain this in my next point. > [@](#): > > If that was true then you wouldn’t believe in God, since God is the opposite of that. Why is God, which is pretty much the craziest idea ever, more plausible? To me, it isn’t “more plausible” that things which look designed, aren’t. It isn’t “more plausible” that the sum of finite entities can equal infinite. To me it’s more plausible that whatever caused matter to come in to existence is probably a timeless entity. Given that matter looks to me like it’s been designed, the timeless entity is probably capable of design. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/256 "2010-07-05T13:18:12Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Your “designer” doesn’t seem to be a random collection of parts thrown together-He must have been designed that way, which necessitates a designer. Turtles all the way down. Please explain some of the design characteristics of the deity I believe in. > [@](#): > > A second is not a “thing”-it’s a measurement of time. A “second” is most certainly, by every reasonable definition, a “thing”. Taking an arbitrary series of sequential changes, putting a start and a finish to it and calling all those changes a _unit of time_, you most certainly have a finite thing. > [@](#): > > You seem to be able to “buy in” to things that are not tangible and/or observable quite easily it seems, btw-your “deity” can’t be observed, apparently has no mass, and by description lived nowhere until he created the universe. When I see something that looks designed, that’s a tangible, observable piece of evidence for the existence of its designer. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/257 "2010-07-05T13:19:40Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > I notice the scope of our mystery deity is narrowing by the minute. Less than a page ago it was just some random creative force and already he’s upgraded to a designer, which is a huge step up and carries a lot of implications both about him and about his creation. Read further back (to page 1) and you’ll see that these deity characteristics I’m positing actually aren’t being recently injected in to the conversation at all, but to the absolute contrary, have been appearing from my very first post 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Cumberdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@Cumberdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cumberdale)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/258 "2010-07-05T13:40:26Z")
[quote=“KellyCriterion, post:255, topic:543965”] I have already made it clear that I don’t agree with this assertion. To me, the universe contains plenty of elements that look _designed_. QUOTE] Also, you can see Slartibartfast’s signature deep inside a glacier in ancient Norway. There, that settles that! ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/259 "2010-07-05T13:47:20Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > When I see something that looks designed, that’s a tangible, observable piece of evidence for the existence of its designer. Or you could simply be mistaken in your observation. For example, to many people [this](http://www.coverups.com/photos/mars_face.jpg) looks like a designed face on Mars. To assert something like a Grand Designer, you might want to go beyond an initial observation. ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/260 "2010-07-05T13:56:13Z")
Considering the size of the universe it would probably be a stronger indication of design if there _wasn’t_ anything that appeared designed. That would be one hell a coincidence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965.md?page=14)