# 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:** 14
**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, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/261 "2010-07-05T14:00:47Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > 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. Of course, if one stipulates that _everything_ looks as if were designed, which might be the case here, then trying to argue the other side is totally useless. ---
**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, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/262 "2010-07-05T14:11:58Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > 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_. Such as? Arguments like yours are hardly new, and they are always wrong. ---
**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, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/263 "2010-07-05T14:12:09Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Or you could simply be mistaken in your observation. Sure could! As could you for _not_ identifying it as design. By I included my relevant footnote in my first post to the thread: > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t say I am _sure_ of my beliefs.. Where’s yours? ---
**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, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/264 "2010-07-05T14:13:14Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Such as? Arguments like yours are hardly new, and they are always wrong. Single cell organisms. Atoms. Energy. ---
**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, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/265 "2010-07-05T14:16:30Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > 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. A “timeless entity” would be totally static, and incapable of design or anything else. > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Single cell organisms. Evolution is responsible for those, and the structure of life in general. In fact, that is precisely what I was thinking of when I commented about how arguments like your aren’t new and are are always wrong. > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Atoms. > > Energy. Neither “looks designed” in any way. ---
**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, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/266 "2010-07-05T14:33:47Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > A “timeless entity” would be totally static, and incapable of design or anything else. An eternal universe seems likewise impossible, so something has to give here. By default, we’d assume nothing should be capable of existence at all. But, given that we are forced to start with the proposition of “Given that things exist..”, it skews our conclusions a certain way. > [@](#): > > Evolution is responsible for those, and the structure of life in general. In fact, that is precisely what I was thinking of when I commented about how arguments like your aren’t new and are are always wrong. Please show the evidence that evolution led to the creation of the first single cell organisms. Hard evidence, please. No reasoning along the lines of “Given we know that life arose from non-living matter, it most likely happened this way..” will be accepted, because that’s circular reasoning, and arguments like that aren’t new, and are always wrong. > [@](#): > > Neither “looks designed” in any way. I can play the assertions game too. “Yes they do”. ---
**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, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/267 "2010-07-05T14:42:07Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Please show the evidence that evolution led to the creation of the first single cell organisms. Hard evidence, please. No reasoning along the lines of “Given we know that life arose from non-living matter, it most likely happened this way..” will be accepted, because that’s circular reasoning, and arguments like that aren’t new, and are always wrong. This is _exactly_ what I was talking about before-extremely lopsided standards when religionists call for evidence. You want to jump to the conclusion that there is some sort of Supreme Designer just because at first glance some things seem to be designed, but when it comes to evolution, from you we get the above quote. Either level that playing field, or this conversation is going nowhere. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/268 "2010-07-05T14:47:45Z")
The idea that “things look designed” is very surprising to someone like me, as I see the opposite. All of the natural features on earth look like they were created by natural forces such as wind and rain. Complex life is certainly an amalgamation of small changes to simpler life. We can see the vestiges of old parts re-purposed to do something different. We even have a very good grasp of the mechanisms and the timeline required for changes in the “junk DNA”. So if something were designed, it must have been the earliest possible stages of life. What would a single cell organism look like if it weren’t designed? What would an atom look like if it weren’t designed? Is God still designing stuff? If so, can you distinguish his handiwork from things he didn’t design? What could be found that would show that it wasn’t designed by God? ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/269 "2010-07-05T14:49:40Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I can play the assertions game too. > > “Yes they do”. Not only that, you are better at it. ---
**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, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/270 "2010-07-05T14:52:09Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > This is _exactly_ what I was talking about before-extremely lopsided standards when religionists call for evidence. You want to jump to the conclusion that there is some sort of Supreme Designer just because at first glance some things seem to be designed, but when it comes to evolution, from you we get the above quote. Either level that playing field, or this conversation is going nowhere. I accept evolution - not so sure about abiogenesis though. The point I was making is that you can’t claim The Designer himself must have been designed, unless you can point out characteristics of said designer that look designed. If you can’t name them, don’t apply my posited design standard to said entity. ---
**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, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/271 "2010-07-05T14:57:54Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > The idea that “things look designed” is very surprising to someone like me, as I see the opposite. All of the natural features on earth look like they were created by natural forces such as wind and rain. No argument from me on that one! > [@](#): > > Complex life is certainly an amalgamation of small changes to simpler life. We can see the vestiges of old parts re-purposed to do something different. We even have a very good grasp of the mechanisms and the timeline required for changes in the “junk DNA”. So if something were designed, it must have been the earliest possible stages of life. Sound. > [@](#): > > What would a single cell organism look like if it weren’t designed? > What would an atom look like if it weren’t designed? Is God still designing stuff? If so, can you distinguish his handiwork from things he didn’t design? What could be found that would show that it wasn’t designed by God? I tend to believe these types of questions are oxymoronic. It would be like asking “What would a three-time PGA tour champion look like that _didn’t_ possess golfing ability?” ---
**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, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/272 "2010-07-05T15:00:12Z")
“Being able to design stuff” is a characteristic that must have been designed. That’s way more complex than a single-celled organism. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/273 "2010-07-05T15:22:48Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I tend to believe these types of questions are oxymoronic. It would be like asking “What would a three-time PGA tour champion look like that _didn’t_ possess golfing ability?” I’ll call your oxymoron and raise a tautology. So if I understand you, you accept that life evolved from simpler things, but you think the earliest examples of life were designed by God because they “look like they were designed”. What early example of life looks designed to you? I didn’t even know that scientists had discovered what it was, never mind have a picture of it. ---
**Author:** ![peledre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@peledre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peledre)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/274 "2010-07-05T15:31:06Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I accept evolution - not so sure about abiogenesis though. > > The point I was making is that you can’t claim The Designer himself must have been designed, unless you can point out characteristics of said designer that look designed. > > If you can’t name them, don’t apply my posited design standard to said entity. You’re simply failing to apply the same logic used to infer that we have a designer to the designer itself. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/275 "2010-07-05T18:18:59Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > 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? To the degree that the person accepts that insulin is what a diabetic needs, the love that will maintain him will need to come through that channel. He needs it because he is not open to another way that God wants to use. He may accept faith healing, but God may want him to look into alternative medicines where the cure for him is, till then he will maintain on insulin. A placebo could work, as he would believe he is getting the medicine, but again that may not be how God wants to cure him. The pharmaceutical industry is what we created by our false beliefs in the power of chemicals to cure diseases, it is what came to pass, and yes it is a great drain on resources, but at least some people are getting help through it till the greater good, the healing Love of God is accepted and made known. It’s not a giant prayer circle, it’s people loving each other as family, with Jesus as the head, it’s living life as it has always been intended. ---
**Author:** ![peledre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@peledre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peledre)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/276 "2010-07-05T19:04:42Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > To the degree that the person accepts that insulin is what a diabetic needs, the love that will maintain him will need to come through that channel. He needs it because he is not open to another way that God wants to use. He may accept faith healing, but God may want him to look into alternative medicines where the cure for him is, till then he will maintain on insulin. > > A placebo could work, as he would believe he is getting the medicine, but again that may not be how God wants to cure him. > > The pharmaceutical industry is what we created by our false beliefs in the power of chemicals to cure diseases, it is what came to pass, and yes it is a great drain on resources, but at least some people are getting help through it till the greater good, the healing Love of God is accepted and made known. > > It’s not a giant prayer circle, it’s people loving each other as family, with Jesus as the head, it’s living life as it has always been intended. ![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/r4p8qxGbpOk/maxresdefault.jpg)https://www.youtube.com/embed/r4p8qxGbpOk?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/277 "2010-07-05T19:06:08Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > To the degree that the person accepts that insulin is what a diabetic needs, the love that will maintain him will need to come through that channel. He needs it because he is not open to another way that God wants to use. He may accept faith healing, but God may want him to look into alternative medicines where the cure for him is, till then he will maintain on insulin. > > A placebo could work, as he would believe he is getting the medicine, but again that may not be how God wants to cure him. How do you explain the results of [double blind](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_blind#Double-blind_trials) studies, where neither the person giving out the medicine nor the repicient knows whether the substance being given is a placebo or the real thing? If the results of these studies were purely about the intentions of the doctor and the patient, why would certain substances be shown to have a greater effectiveness than a placebo? ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/278 "2010-07-05T20:50:40Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > How do you explain the results of [double blind](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_blind#Double-blind_trials) studies, where neither the person giving out the medicine nor the repicient knows whether the substance being given is a placebo or the real thing? > > If the results of these studies were purely about the intentions of the doctor and the patient, why would certain substances be shown to have a greater effectiveness than a placebo? Throughout history of societies there is usually a medicine man or some sort of person who performs healing for the societal group. This person has been one connected with their ‘higher selves’, or ‘God’, or other higher spiritual life forms, and the group of people that he is in society with. This is our extended spiritual family, and this person, normally considered the elder is gifted with the ability to have the Love of God flow through higher forms through him to the person in need. Our belief in medicine is a block to the flow of love directly, we have blocked out that direct route, but the elders of society are still there today, their heart is to heal the people, which would tend them towards medicine, as that is the channel that people accept at this time. A person receiving medicine created a company that employs that elder (that works on the medicine) is a channel of the love of God to heal, so yes it is a way of doing it, but a very inefficient way. But this is why the double blind studies seem to point out that certain drugs work better then the placebo. Like all things there are varing degrees, some elders have been given much love, and can cure many, like through the giant pharmaceutical companies, others such as doctors and medical technicians can cure a smaller number, but all only through the love of God flowing through them and accepted by the patient. This is why the placebo sometimes works. ---
**Author:** ![peledre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@peledre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peledre)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/279 "2010-07-05T20:55:49Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Throughout history of societies there is usually a medicine man or some sort of person who performs healing for the societal group. This person has been one connected with their ‘higher selves’, or ‘God’, or other higher spiritual life forms, and the group of people that he is in society with. This is our extended spiritual family, and this person, normally considered the elder is gifted with the ability to have the Love of God flow through higher forms through him to the person in need. > > Our belief in medicine is a block to the flow of love directly, we have blocked out that direct route, but the elders of society are still there today, their heart is to heal the people, which would tend them towards medicine, as that is the channel that people accept at this time. > > A person receiving medicine created a company that employs that elder (that works on the medicine) is a channel of the love of God to heal, so yes it is a way of doing it, but a very inefficient way. But this is why the double blind studies seem to point out that certain drugs work better then the placebo. > > Like all things there are varing degrees, some elders have been given much love, and can cure many, like through the giant pharmaceutical companies, others such as doctors and medical technicians can cure a smaller number, but all only through the love of God flowing through them and accepted by the patient. This is why the placebo sometimes works. Does anyone know wtf this person is talking about? ---
**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, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/280 "2010-07-05T20:56:51Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Throughout history of societies there is usually a medicine man or some sort of person who performs healing for the societal group. This person has been one connected with their ‘higher selves’, or ‘God’, or other higher spiritual life forms, and the group of people that he is in society with. This is our extended spiritual family, and this person, normally considered the elder is gifted with the ability to have the Love of God flow through higher forms through him to the person in need. > > Our belief in medicine is a block to the flow of love directly, we have blocked out that direct route, but the elders of society are still there today, their heart is to heal the people, which would tend them towards medicine, as that is the channel that people accept at this time. > > A person receiving medicine created a company that employs that elder (that works on the medicine) is a channel of the love of God to heal, so yes it is a way of doing it, but a very inefficient way. But this is why the double blind studies seem to point out that certain drugs work better then the placebo. > > Like all things there are varing degrees, some elders have been given much love, and can cure many, like through the giant pharmaceutical companies, others such as doctors and medical technicians can cure a smaller number, but all only through the love of God flowing through them and accepted by the patient. This is why the placebo sometimes works. OMG. Again I ask-what science or sciences have you been trained in? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965.md?page=15)